Internal Complaint Committee Cannot Entertain Complaints Filed Beyond Three Month Limitation Period Under POSH Act: J&K High Court

Quashing the proceedings initiated by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) against petitioner Mohammad Altaf Bhat on these grounds Justice Javed Iqbal Wani cited K. Reeja Parambath Naaluthara Vs. Pradeep T. C. and Ors”. reported in 2017 SCC Online Ker 10625 and observed,

“that the authority under the Act of 2013, had no power to act upon a complaint and pass orders thereon filed before it, beyond the condonable period of limitation of 3 months provided under proviso 2 of Section 9(1)”.

Bhat, a senior officer in the Income Tax Department, was accused of harassment by respondent No. 4, a Tax Assistant under his supervision. The allegations arose from an alleged incident dated April 25, 2016. Initially, the respondent's complaint, filed in 2016, was withdrawn due to lack of evidence. Despite this, the respondent lodged a complaint with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 354 RPC. After a trial, the petitioner was acquitted in September 2018.

Subsequently, in October 2017, the respondent filed another complaint before the ICC regarding the same alleged incident. The ICC issued a report in February 2021, recommending a fine of ₹1 lakh against the petitioner and initiating misconduct proceedings.

Assailing the proceedings before the High Court the petitioner contended that the ICC's proceedings were legally untenable as the complaint was filed beyond the three-month limitation period prescribed under Section 9(1) of the POSH Act. The petitioner highlighted that no reasons were recorded by the ICC for condoning the delay, making its actions without jurisdiction.

It was further argued that the ICC disregarded the petitioner's acquittal in related criminal proceedings, and the inquiry was conducted in violation of natural justice principles.

On the contrary the respondents maintained that the allegations of harassment were ongoing and justified the delayed filing of the complaint. They further argued that the ICC conducted a full inquiry in accordance with the POSH Act and provided adequate opportunities to both parties to present their cases.

Justice Wani, after examining the statutory framework and records, underscored the mandatory nature of Section 9(1) of the POSH Act, which allows filing of complaints within three months of an alleged incident. The limitation period can only be extended by another three months if justified by recorded reasons, the court underscored.

The Court noted that the alleged incident occurred on April 25, 2016, but the complaint was filed on October 16, 2017 far beyond the permissible period. The ICC's failure to record reasons for condoning this delay rendered its actions without jurisdiction the court stated and explained that the authority under the POSH Act has no power to act upon a complaint filed beyond the condonable limitation period of three months as mandated by the statute itself.

“Under these circumstances, the complaint filed by respondent 4 herein against the petitioner herein under the Act of 2013 on 16th of October 2017 regarding an alleged incident dated 25th of April 2016 indisputably could not have been either entertained or else taken cognizance of by the ICC and dealt with thereafter”, the court remarked.

Terming ICC's recommendations procedurally invalid the court quashed the complaint, holding that the petitioner had been deprived of natural justice during the inquiry.

Case Title: Mohammad Altaf Bhat Vs Principal Chief of Commissioner and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 338

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment