No Parallel Mechanism Under PoSH: Delhi High Court Quashes Suspension of Delhi University Professor

The Delhi High Court has held that while employers retain the inherent authority to suspend an employee facing allegations of sexual harassment, such power must be exercised strictly in accordance with statutory safeguards, principles of natural justice, and without attaching any stigma.

The Court has further clarified that institutions cannot create parallel or ad hoc fact-finding mechanisms outside the framework of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act), reiterating that the statute provides a complete and self-contained mechanism for inquiry into such complaints.

A single-judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav set aside the suspension of a college principal, holding the impugned order to be legally unsustainable as it was stigmatic and founded on an impermissible preliminary inquiry conducted by an ad hoc committee.

The Court, however, clarified that the employer is at liberty to pass a fresh suspension order, provided it adheres to the law and avoids prejudicial language.

The case arose out of sexual harassment allegations levelled against the petitioner, who was serving as Principal of Ramanujan College under the University of Delhi.

The petitioner challenged his suspension on multiple grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, procedural irregularity, and violation of the statutory scheme under the PoSH Act.

A key aspect of the challenge was directed against the constitution of an ad hoc fact-finding committee by the Deputy Registrar, which had recommended his suspension even before the matter was placed before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC).

The Court framed three principal issues for consideration: first, whether the employer had the authority to suspend the petitioner in connection with a complaint under the PoSH Act; second, whether the constitution of an ad hoc fact-finding committee was legally permissible; and third, whether the suspension order was vitiated for being stigmatic in nature.

On the issue of suspension, the Court affirmed that the power to suspend is an inherent administrative power vested in the employer and is not derived from the PoSH Act.

The statute, the Court observed, is primarily concerned with providing a mechanism for inquiry into complaints of sexual harassment, and does not regulate disciplinary measures such as suspension. Therefore, an employer may suspend an employee pending inquiry, so long as such action complies with applicable service rules and does not violate principles of fairness.

However, the Court found the procedure adopted in the present case to be fundamentally flawed. It held that the constitution of an ad hoc fact-finding committee was ultra vires the PoSH Act.

The statutory scheme mandates that complaints of sexual harassment must be examined exclusively by the Internal Complaints Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be. The creation of parallel bodies to conduct preliminary inquiries was held to be impermissible and contrary to legislative intent.

The Court underscored that such extra-statutory mechanisms undermine the procedural safeguards built into the PoSH framework, including confidentiality, impartiality, and time-bound inquiry.

It further noted that the ad hoc committee lacked statutory backing and failed to meet the minimum requirements of a fair adjudicatory process, particularly the principles of nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem.

The absence of structured procedures and safeguards rendered the committee’s findings legally untenable.

Significantly, the Court also examined the language of the suspension order and found it to be stigmatic. The order contained explicit references to serious allegations of misconduct and sexual harassment, which, according to the Court, effectively attributed guilt to the petitioner even before the conclusion of a formal inquiry.

Such language, the Court held, is impermissible as it prejudices the reputation of the employee and violates the presumption of innocence.

Reiterating settled principles, the Court observed that while suspension pending inquiry is permissible, it must remain a neutral administrative measure. Any order that carries imputations of guilt or casts aspersions on the employee’s character would be liable to be struck down.

In conclusion, the Court set aside the suspension order on the dual grounds of procedural illegality and stigmatic framing. At the same time, it granted liberty to the respondent institution to initiate fresh action in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.

The ruling draws a clear distinction between the employer’s disciplinary authority and the statutory mechanism under the PoSH Act, emphasizing that while both may operate concurrently, neither can be exercised in a manner that compromises due process.

It serves as a significant precedent reinforcing that institutions must strictly adhere to the statutory framework and avoid informal or parallel processes that risk undermining fairness and legality.

Case Title: Prof. Rasal Singh v. University of Delhi

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026