POSH Act | Disciplinary Authority Bound By Findings Of Fact Given By Internal Complaints Committee: Madras High Court

Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu noted that as per the observations of the Apex Court, the findings and the report of the Complaints Committee shall not be treated as a mere preliminary investigation or an inquiry leading to disciplinary action, but as a finding/report in an inquiry into the misconduct of the delinquent in the sexual harassment case.

“From the conjoint reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court extracted supra, we are of the view that the disciplinary authority is bound by the findings of fact given by the internal complaints committee viz., the second respondent herein. The second respondent is a fact-finding enquiry authority and the report of the committee is held to be a report of an enquiry authority based upon which a disciplinary action by the first respondent [college] can be initiated,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a plea by Samual Tennyson, an Assistant Professor of Madras Christian College against the order of a single judge upholding the show cause notice issued by the Convenor of the Committee of Enquiry/Internal Complaints Committee. The college had initiated proceedings against him under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace (POSH) Act based on complaints received by the students. 

Tennyson had argued that the ICC had conducted the inquiry contrary to the procedures and that he had been denied the opportunity of hearing, which was in violation to the principles of natural justice. He added that the show cause notice was opposed to all canons of service jurisprudence as no charge memo had been issued to him indicating the charges and no inquiry officer had been appointed to conduct an inquiry. He argued that the procedures laid down under the POSH Act had not been followed in the present case and on that ground itself, the order of termination would be illegal as being stigmatic without subjecting him to a regular inquiry as per the Service Rules. 

Tennyson further argued that the ICC was only a fact-finding committee and the disciplinary committee could not arrive at a decision based on its report. He submitted that regular departmental proceedings ought to have been initiated under the Act.

On the other hand, the College and the ICC informed the court that due procedure had been followed. It was informed that a copy of the complaint had been duly forwarded to Tennyson as soon as it was received. The court was also informed that Tennyson was allowed to have the assistance of a lawyer and except for the statement of the complainant, he was present while recording the statement of the witness. It was submitted that there were no procedural lapses in passing the order of punishment.

The respondents also argued that when there were no service rules, the Complaints Committee itself could make a recommendation as to the punishment to be inflicted on a person, who was found to be guilty of sexual harassment.  

The court agreed with the submission and noted that based on Tennyson's reply to the initial notice of the ICC, it could be seen that he was supplied with copies of the complaint. The court also agreed that the Committee had not violated the principles of natural justice.

The court also disagreed with the petitioner's submission and held that if the ICC is treated as a mere preliminary inquiry, it would lead to a situation where the affected victims of sexual harassment would be embarrassed again to substantiate their case before another authority.

The court noted that as per Section 13 of the POSH Act and Rule 9 of the POSH Rules, if the Complaints Committee concludes that the allegations have been proven, it could recommend to the employer to take action for sexual harassment, as misconduct in accordance with the provisions of the service law and take action, including termination.

In the present case, the court noted that Tennyson's service was governed by an agreement as envisaged under Sub-Rule 2(I) of Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules 1976 according to which an employee should not be contemned in violation of principles of natural justice and the well-settled principles of audi alteram partem. 

The court noted that the disciplinary authority was bound by the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee as per the POSH Act. Thus, the court found no infirmity and dismissed the petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.V.Vijaya Shankar

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. P. John Zachariah for M/s.Fox Mandal and Associates, Mr.Sai Prasad for M/s.Sai Raaj Associates

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 224

Case Title: Samuel Tennyson v The Principal & Secretary, MCC and Others

Case No: Writ Appeal No.2962 of 2019