AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEES PRECEDING STATUTORY POSH INQUIRIES ARE IMPERMISSIBLE AND DEVOID OF LEGAL AUTHORITY

In brief

The question

1. Whether the College had the power to suspend the Petitioner for a case pertaining to the PoSH Act

The court held

an employer retains the inherent power to suspend an employee during a PoSH inquiry under service rules; the creation of an ad hoc fact-finding committee to determine if a complaint should be sent to the ICC is de hors the PoSH Act and impermissible; and the specific suspension order was stigmatic

It also directed

The Court set aside the Suspension Order dated September 18, 2025, but granted the College liberty to pass a fresh, non-stigmatic order

01Facts

The Petitioner, the Principal of Ramanujan College, was accused of sexual harassment by three assistant professors

pp. 1-2, 5

On May 5, 2025, the Deputy Registrar (Colleges), University of Delhi, constituted an ad hoc fact-finding committee to examine these allegations

p. 6

The committee’s report [No. 23.06.2025] found the charges serious and recommended referring them to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)

p. 6

Based solely on this report and Vice-Chancellor approval, the College Chairperson issued a suspension order on September 18, 2025

p. 6

The Petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the University to form an ad hoc committee and the validity of the suspension order, arguing it was stigmatic

p. 3, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the College had the power to suspend the Petitioner for a case pertaining to the PoSH Act

p. 5 / para. 7.1

ii.2. Whether the Deputy Registrar (Colleges), DU, had the power to constitute an ad hoc fact-finding committee pursuant to a complaint received under the PoSH Act

p. 5 / para. 7.2

iii.3. Whether the said Suspension Order is stigmatic in nature

p. 5 / para. 7.3

03Law Applied

Section 28 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (PoSH) Act, 2013, which stipulates that the Act is in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws

p. 14, 23

Section 11 of the PoSH Act requires inquiries to be conducted by the ICC in accordance with applicable service rules

p. 15, 18

The inherent right of an employer to suspend an employee pending inquiry as affirmed in R.P. Kapur v. Union of India and Balvantrai Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra

p. 9, 10

Principles from Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India, which mandate strict adherence to the statutory procedure of the PoSH Act

p. 17, 22

The definition of 'stigma' from Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Pan American World Airways

p. 25

Provisions in the judgment · 12 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 10 provisions

Section 6 Section 9 Section 10 Section 11 Section 12 Section 13 Section 16 Section 17 Section 28 Section 29

General Clauses Act, 1897 Section 16

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 509

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that while Section 12 of the PoSH Act does not explicitly mention suspension as an interim measure, an employer’s inherent power to suspend is preserved by Section 28 and existing service rules

¶ 24-26, 43

the constitution of the ad hoc fact-finding committee was held illegal because the PoSH Act mandates that the ICC/Local Committee "shall" inquire into such complaints; creating a parallel, extra-statutory body violates the specialized, time-bound mechanism intended by the legislature

¶ 31-34, 39, 44

The Court analyzed the language of the suspension order, noting it explicitly cited "serious misconduct and harassment". The Court found this language editorialized and prejudicial, creating a negative public impression of the Petitioner before the inquiry's conclusion, thereby making the order stigmatic

¶ 52, 53-54