Facts: An officer in the Indian Navy, Cdr. Yogesh Mahla, was served a show cause notice for termination of service following a complaint of sexual harassment by a Principal Medical Officer. The Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) recommended action against him.
Procedural Posture: Cdr. Mahla challenged the ICC's proceedings and the show cause notice before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The AFT dismissed his application, stating it was premature to interfere at the show cause notice stage. He then filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which was also dismissed. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Did the Armed Forces Tribunal err in dismissing the appellant's application challenging the ICC report and show cause notice at a preliminary stage? Was the High Court correct in holding that the appellant had no right of appeal under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act)?
Holding: Yes, the Supreme Court held that both the Tribunal and the High Court erred. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court reasoned that the show cause notice was based on the ICC's report and recommendations, which were under challenge. The Tribunal should have considered the correctness of the ICC report. Section 18 of the POSH Act provides a right to appeal against the recommendations of the ICC. The Supreme Court stated, "Section 14 of the AFT Act, 2007 when read in juxtaposition with Section 18 of the POSH Act, we find that the appellant herein had rightly approached the Tribunal so as to assail the report as well as the recommendations of the ICC." The Court clarified that Regulation 216 of the Navy Regulations is general, while Section 18 of the POSH Act is a specific provision enabling a person to challenge the ICC report. The Supreme Court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the observations made and in accordance with law.