‘ICC Findings Conclusive’: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Suspension of Committee Members in POSH Case

Recommendations of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) are mandatory and binding on the employer, the Allahabad High Court has held, clarifying that such findings are not merely advisory in nature but carry a statutory obligation of implementation.

Deciding on a couple of petitions led by Km. Sunita Devi, the bench of Justice Manish Mathur ruled that once an ICC completes its inquiry under the 2013 Act, the employer is required to act on its recommendations and cannot initiate a parallel inquiry into the same allegations.

Court held that the statutory scheme makes the committee’s findings conclusive, subject only to appeal under the Act, and that non-compliance may even attract penal consequences.

Court examined provisions of Sections 11, 13, 18 and 26 of the Act along with the corresponding rules, and concluded that the legislative intent was to vest the ICC with full authority to conduct inquiries and recommend action. It noted that the law provides for appeals only against the committee’s recommendations and not against actions taken by the employer, reinforcing the binding nature of such findings.

The decision was tabled in a dispute arising from a complaint of sexual harassment filed on July 27, 2025, against an officer of the State Tax Department. An ICC was constituted the next day, with the petitioners serving as its members. The committee recorded statements of the complainant, the accused officer and other witnesses, and submitted its report on July 31, 2025, concluding that the allegations were not proved.

Despite the report exonerating the accused, the officer was placed under suspension on August 3, 2025. Subsequently, the petitioners themselves were suspended by orders dated August 5 and 6, 2025, on allegations that they had deliberately ignored material evidence and attempted to shield the accused.

Challenging their suspension, the petitioners argued that they had acted in a quasi-judicial capacity as members of the ICC and could not be subjected to disciplinary proceedings merely for the conclusions reached in their report. They contended that the suspension orders lacked any prima facie finding of misconduct and were based solely on disagreement with their decision.

The State, on the other hand, alleged that the committee had disregarded crucial testimony, including that of a senior officer who had corroborated the complainant’s allegations, and relied on irrelevant material. It also relied on an audio recording submitted by the complainant to argue that the committee members had acted in a biased manner.

On the second issue, concerning the validity of the suspension orders, court held that disciplinary action against officials exercising quasi-judicial functions must be founded on prima facie material indicating misconduct, such as mala fides, recklessness or extraneous considerations. It emphasised that mere errors in appreciation of evidence or the possibility of a different conclusion cannot justify disciplinary proceedings.

Court found that the impugned suspension orders failed to meet this standard. It observed that the orders did not record any satisfaction that the petitioners’ conduct, as distinct from their decision, warranted disciplinary action or that the allegations were serious enough to justify suspension under service rules.

The bench also noted that the committee had been directed to conclude its inquiry within an unusually short timeframe, which could potentially affect the fairness of the process.

Holding that the suspension orders were passed in a “cursory manner” without application of mind, court quashed the orders dated August 5 and 6, 2025. It, however, granted liberty to the authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, after recording the requisite satisfaction as mandated under the rules.

The writ petitions were accordingly allowed.

Case Title: Km. Sunita Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. State Tax Lko. And 4 Others

Order Date: April 20, 2026

Bench: Justice Manish Mathur