ICC of Victim’s Department can Inquire against Accused Officer: SC in IAS Officer’s Sexual Harassment Complaint against IRS Officer [Read Judgement]

In matter regards to the POSH Act (The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act), the Supreme Court has held that an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted in the department of the aggrieved woman has full jurisdiction to inquire into a sexual harassment complaint even if the accused officer belongs to a different department.

The judgment was given by Justice J. K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi. The brief fact is that an IAS officer accused an IRS officer of sexual harassment at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.

The IRS officer challenged the jurisdiction of the ICC of the IAS officer’s department, arguing that only the ICC of his own department could conduct proceedings. Both the CAT and the Delhi High Court rejected this claim, and the Supreme Court has now supported those findings in detail.

The Court examined Section 11 of the POSH Act, which states that “where the respondent is an employee”, the ICC must conduct the inquiry in accordance with the service rules applicable to such employees.

The accused officer argued that the word “where” should be interpreted as “at the place where he is employed,” meaning the inquiry must be conducted only by the ICC of his own department.

The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, holding that the word “where” refers to a situation, not a geographical location, and cannot be treated as a jurisdictional restriction. Instead, the section merely clarifies the manner in which the ICC must conduct the inquiry, applying the service rules relevant to the respondent.

The apex court said that the POSH Act is a social welfare legislation, designed to give women easy access to mechanisms that ensure a safe workplace. Forcing a victim to approach the ICC of the accused officer’s department would create unnecessary psychological, procedural, and logistical barriers.

The POSH Act defines “workplace” in an intentionally wide manner and does not state anywhere that the respondent must be an employee of the same workplace as the complainant. Rather, a “respondent” under Section 2(m) can be any person one makes a POSH complaint against. Therefore, the ICC of the victim’s department remains fully empowered to inquire into such complaints, regardless of departmental boundaries.

Additionally, while addressing the argument that disciplinary authority lies with the accused officer’s own department, the Court also clarified that inquiry and disciplinary action are two separate stages. The ICC at the victim’s workplace conducts the fact-finding inquiry and submits its report to the employer of the respondent, who must then take disciplinary action as per the service rules.

Section 13 of the POSH Act specifically states that the ICC’s report must be acted upon within 60 days by the employer. Thus, while the victim’s ICC inquires into the complaint, the respondent’s department retains responsibility for implementing disciplinary consequences.

The bench also referred to the Government’s 2015 Office Memorandum, which explains the two-step process for sexual harassment cases involving Central Government employees: first, a preliminary fact-finding by the ICC, and second, disciplinary proceedings conducted under the CCS (CCA) Rules if charges are formally issued.

Also, the Court held that nothing in this Act prevents inter-departmental functioning of ICCs under the POSH Act. On the contrary, allowing only the respondent’s departmental ICC to act would defeat the protective intent behind expanding the definition of “workplace” under the Act.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates