MP High Court: Sexual Harassment Complaints Must Be Probed By ICC Under POSH, Not Independent Inquiry Officer

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has quashed the termination of an assistant professor accused of sexual harassment, holding that a university cannot bypass the statutory mechanism prescribed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, by appointing an independent inquiry officer to investigate such allegations. The Court directed reinstatement of the professor and ordered that the complaints be referred to the competent Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) or Local Complaints Committee (LCC) for a fresh inquiry in accordance with law.

Justice Ashish Shroti passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by Dr. Sajan Kurien Mathew, who had challenged his termination from service by a state university on December 31, 2025, following a departmental inquiry into allegations of sexual harassment made by students.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Ankit Chaturvedi, while the State was represented by Government Advocate G.K. Agarwal and respondent no. 2 by Advocate Sameer Kumar Shrivastava.

According to the record, complaints alleging sexual harassment were submitted by students in March 2025. The university constituted a Students’ Grievance Redressal Committee (SGRC), which recorded statements of complainants but ultimately observed that no supporting evidence had been produced and that the matter was already under police investigation.

An FIR was also registered against the professor under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Thereafter, the university initiated departmental proceedings, issued a charge-sheet and appointed a retired Principal District Judge as an inquiry officer. Based on the inquiry report and subsequent proceedings, the petitioner was dismissed from service.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the inquiry itself was without jurisdiction because Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules mandates that complaints involving sexual harassment must be investigated by the Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the POSH framework. It was contended that the Vice-Chancellor lacked authority to appoint an independent inquiry officer in such cases.

The respondents, however, argued that disciplinary authorities retained the power to appoint an inquiry officer independently of the mechanism contemplated under the POSH Act and that the departmental proceedings were therefore valid.

Rejecting the university’s stand, the Court undertook an extensive examination of the legal framework beginning with the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and the subsequent enactment of the POSH Act. The Court observed that Parliament had created a specialised and carefully structured mechanism to address sexual harassment complaints, incorporating safeguards such as confidentiality, gender-sensitive composition of committees and fixed timelines for completion of inquiries.

Justice Shroti held that permitting employers to establish parallel inquiry mechanisms would defeat the very purpose of the legislation. The Court observed that, “if an employer is allowed to constitute a parallel enquiry authority, other than ICC or LCC, to enquire into the allegations of sexual harassment by a woman at workplace, the same would frustrate the object of the POSH Act.”

The Court further held that Rule 14(2) of the CCA Rules expressly treats the complaints committee as the inquiry authority in cases involving allegations of sexual harassment and consequently removes the disciplinary authority’s power to appoint any separate inquiry officer. It concluded that the ICC or LCC alone is competent to conduct such inquiries and submit a report, which must then be treated as the inquiry report for disciplinary purposes.

The judgment also clarified that university grievance committees constituted under the University Grants Commission (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023, are not substitutes for the ICC mechanism envisaged under the POSH Act and the UGC Regulations governing sexual harassment complaints in higher educational institutions.

Holding that the entire process adopted by the university violated the POSH Act, UGC Regulations and applicable service rules, the Court set aside the dismissal order. It directed the university to immediately forward the complaints to the appropriate ICC or LCC for consideration in accordance with statutory procedure and ordered that the petitioner be reinstated and allowed to join at his transferred posting in Bhopal pending further proceedings.

Case Title: Dr Sajan Kurien Mathew v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: May 15, 2026

Bench: Justice Ashish Shroti