Sexual Harassment Complaint, Enquiry Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed Merely Because ICC Failed To Complete Enquiry Within 90 Days: Delhi High Court

Expressing a prima facie view, the Delhi High Court has observed that the complaint of sexual harassment and inquiry proceeding cannot be quashed merely because internal complaints committee (ICC) failed to complete inquiry within the time-frame of 90 days mentioned under section 11(4) of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

“Needless to say, that such complaints containing allegations of sexual harassment deserves to be treated with a certain amount of seriousness and responsibility and accordingly, the same have to be inquired into and taken to their logical conclusion for it is both in the interest of the complainant as well as the person against whom the allegations of sexual harassment have been levelled,” Justice Vikas Mahajan said.

Observing that section 11(4) of the Act cannot be said to be mandatory, the court referred to the decision of Tripura High Court in Vinay Kumar Rai v. Union of India and Ors. wherein it was observed that the time limit provided under the provision cannot be seen as a terminal point beyond which the inquiry cannot be continued.

The court made the observations while denying interim relief to a Chartered Accountant who has challenged a second complaint filed by the complainant under POSH Act. It was his case that the second complaint filed on October 12, 2022 pertained to the same alleged incident which was already the subject matter of an initial complaint dated June 3, 2022.

The CA had also challenged the notice received by him regarding the hearing to be held on January 6 in respect of the second complaint.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that two proceedings with regards to the same incident are not permissible in law and that the CA cannot be vexed twice by initiating two inquiries against him for the same cause of action.

The counsel further contended that as per section 11(4), the inquiry had to be completed within a period of ninety days which elapsed from the date of the initial complaint and thus the entire proceedings of the ICC are vitiated.

On the other hand, the respondents submitted that a preliminary hearing was held on September 24, 2022 in which an effort was made for conciliation. It was added that the second complaint is not a different complaint and that the contents of both the complaints are identical.

The court prima facie found force in the contention of the respondents that the inquiry initiated by ICC, with regards to the initial complaint, preliminary hearing and the one proposed to be held, are part of the same inquiry.

There is no question of the petitioner being subjected to two separate enquiries, the court said.

The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that since the inquiry proceedings were not concluded within a period of 90 days, the same will be vitiated.

Observing that the petitioner has failed to point out any prejudice caused to him on account of the delay, Justice Mahajan observed:

“It is not the case of the petitioner that the delay is attributable to the respondent no. 3 (complainant). I am prima facie of the view that the complaint of sexual harassment and the inquiry proceeding emanating therefrom cannot be quashed merely for the reasons that the internal complaints committee failed to complete the inquiry within the time frame given in Section 11(4) of the Act.”

Finding no prima facie case for grant of interim relief in petitioner’s favour, the court directed the respondents to file counter affidavit in the matter within a period of four weeks and listed it for hearing on March 28.

Title: CA NITESH PARASHAR v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ICAI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 20

Click Here To Read Order