[POSH Act] Kerala HC Directs State To Frame Guidelines To Ensure Anonymity Of Complainant From Public Domain During Enquiry: Kerala HC

The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P.Krishna Kumar, however, clarified that this must not prejudice the rights of the employee against whom allegations are being made.

Court stated, “..at present there is no mechanism to anonymise the complainant, who alleges that she faced sexual harassment or other atrocities as envisaged by the POSH Act, in the various proceedings related to the enquiry. When the right to privacy is recognized as one of the important facets of the fundamental rights of a person, a complainant who raises such a grievance is also entitled to ensure that her whereabouts are anonymised from the public domain. That said, this should be done in such a manner not prejudicial to the rights of the employee against whom the complaint is made, while he defends the enquiry. this purpose, we direct the first respondent to formulate necessary guidelines within a period of four months.”

Regarding anonymising details of complainant, the Court also referred to Bombay High Court decision in P v. A & Others (2021) where some guidelines were issued to ensure the privacy of the victim under the POSH Act during the court proceedings. The Court stated that the State government can consider to these guidelines for reference.

The Court issued the order in an original petition filed by the employee, who was a Deputy Director in the District Tourism office, challenging the enquiry proceedings initiated against him under the POSH Act.

The complaint was filed by a female co-worker alleging that she was harassed in various ways. During enquiry proceedings, a show cause notice, tentatively proposing to lower his rank as junior most in the category of Tourist Information Officer.

The Petitioner challenged the enquiry proceedings before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. It was dismissed stating that his petition was premature and that he can challenge the final orders. Aggrieved by this, he has approached the High Court.

The Petitioner submitted that he was not permitted participate in the inquiry. He submitted that he was not even given an opportunity to cross examine the complainant during her examination. He also submitted that enquiry proceedings must be carried as per the procedure given in the service rules applicable to him.

The Court referred to Section 11 and 13 of the POSH Act to state that the enquiry under the POSH Act is in the nature of a disciplinary enquiry. It thus stated that procedure under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or such other departmental rules applicable to the employee must be followed during enquiry proceedings. 

The Court held that enquiry proceedings would not be vitiated solely because the Petitioner was not given an opportunity to verbally cross examine the complainant. Relying upon Sibu L S v. Air India Ltd. New Delhi (2016), Court emphasized that the complainant's ability to depose fearlessly during cross-examination must be assessed before permitting cross-examination.

Furthermore, the Court held that disciplinary proceedings should not be challenged at every interim stage, as doing so would prevent them from attaining finality.

Court said, “As a general rule, a delinquent facing a disciplinary enquiry should not be permitted to challenge the intermediary proceedings until the enquiry and the consequential decision of the disciplinary authority are concluded. If at all there is any violation of the principles of natural justice or the relevant statutory provisions while conducting the enquiry, the employee can raise those matters while challenging the final outcome. If the enquiry proceedings or disciplinary actions are subjected to challenges at every interim stage, there will not be any finality to the process and that will affect the very system of public administration.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the enquiry committee to conduct the proceedings as per the service rules applicable to the Petitioner. It further stated if the enquiry proceedings were conducted as per law, it may proceed to further stages.

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Elvin Peter PJ, Advocates K.R.Ganesh, Jeleetta Gregory Anamika M.J. Adarsh Babu C.S.

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader Sunilkumar Kuriakose

Case Title: Thomas Antony v State of Kerala

Case No: OP(KAT) NO. 80 OF 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 195