MOHINDER KUMAR v. THE CHAIRMAN NABARD HEAD OFFICE AND ANR.
POSH Act: CCC Exceeds Jurisdiction Recommending Action Absent Sexual Harassment; Reprimand Quashed for Lack of Independent Inquiry.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:1445-DB
Decision Date: 12-01-2026
List of Laws
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013; NABARD (Staff) Rules, 1982
- Facts: Dr. Mohinder Kumar, an Assistant General Manager (Retired) at NABARD, filed a writ petition challenging a reprimand imposed on him based on a Central Complaints Committee (CCC) report. The petitioner had recorded videos of female staff members who he claimed were disrupting the office environment with excessive gossiping. Subsequently, the female staff filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner was staring at them and recording them without their consent. The CCC concluded that the petitioner's actions did not constitute sexual harassment but were objectionable and recommended action against him, leading to the reprimand. The petitioner was also compulsorily retired, but that order is being challenged separately.
- Procedural Posture: The case came before the Bombay High Court as a writ petition filed by Dr. Kumar challenging the reprimand order issued by NABARD based on the CCC's recommendation. The respondents raised an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner should have challenged the impugned order as per Rule 48 of the NABARD (Staff) Rules, 1982.
- Issue: Did the CCC exceed its jurisdiction by recommending action against the petitioner when it concluded that his conduct did not constitute sexual harassment? Was the Competent Authority justified in issuing a reprimand based solely on the CCC's recommendation without independent inquiry?
- Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the CCC exceeded its jurisdiction, and the Competent Authority erred in imposing the penalty of reprimand. The writ petition was allowed, and the reprimand order was quashed.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the CCC, constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), is specifically meant to address grievances of sexual harassment. Section 13(2) of the POSH Act mandates that if the Internal Committee concludes that the allegations are unproven, it should recommend that no action be taken. The Court noted that the CCC itself found that the petitioner's conduct did not amount to sexual harassment. Therefore, it should not have recommended any action. The Court further stated that the Competent Authority erred by imposing the reprimand solely based on the CCC's recommendation without applying its own mind or conducting an independent inquiry. The court quoted Section 13(2) of the POSH Act, 2013: "Where the Internal Committee... arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has not been proved, it shall recommend to the employer and the District Officer that no action is required to be taken in the matter."
🔒 For Members Only