ARUN A. IYER v. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Finality of ICC Inquiry - No Requirement for De Novo Inquiry or Separate Charge-Sheet under Service Rules for Penalties under the POSH Act.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:7056-DB
Decision Date: 24-03-2026
List of Laws
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013; Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965; Indian Institute of Technology Act, 1961; Constitution of India, Article 226; Principles of Natural Justice
- Facts: The Petitioner, a Professor at IIT Bombay, was subjected to a major penalty of compulsory retirement following a complaint of sexual harassment filed by Respondent No. 4. An Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was constituted, which conducted an inquiry involving statements from both parties, witness testimonies, and cross-examinations. The ICC’s report, dated 11 December 2023, recommended removal from service. The Board of Governors (Disciplinary Authority) considered the report and the Petitioner's objections, subsequently issuing a show-cause notice. After considering the Petitioner's reply, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order on 18 June 2024, imposing compulsory retirement. The Petitioner challenged this order, primarily arguing that a second formal inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, including the issuance of a formal charge-sheet, was mandatory before imposing a major penalty.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioner approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the order of compulsory retirement and requesting a remand for a fresh inquiry.
- Issue: Whether the imposition of a major penalty based on an ICC report under the POSH Act requires a separate, second inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and whether the absence of a formal charge-sheet vitiates the disciplinary proceedings.
- Holding: No, a separate inquiry is not required. The Court held that the ICC report is deemed to be an inquiry report for the purpose of disciplinary action, and when a specialized procedure under the POSH Act and Institute-specific rules has been followed, there is no necessity to fall back on the general CCS (CCA) Rules.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the POSH Act is a "complete code" providing a comprehensive mechanism for addressing sexual harassment. Under Section 13(3)(i) of the POSH Act and the IIT Bombay Policy/Attendant Rules, the ICC functions as an Inquiring Authority. The Court noted that the Petitioner had participated fully in the ICC proceedings, meaning the principles of natural justice were satisfied. Relying on Supreme Court precedents like "Aureliano Fernandes" and "Dilip Paul", the Court clarified that the non-framing of formal articles of charge is not fatal if the delinquent was aware of the allegations and had an opportunity to defend himself. Furthermore, special laws prevail over general laws; since the IIT Act and the specific Institute Policy provided a valid procedure, the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, were not applicable. Permitting a second inquiry on the same facts would undermine the object of the POSH Act and lead to procedural absurdity.
🔒 For Members Only