Delhi HC Upholds Immediate Repatriation Of NCSC Deputationist After ICC Recommended Disciplinary Action On Colleague’s POSH Complaint

The petitioner, a Central Secretariat Service officer, joined the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) as a Research Officer on deputation for three years.

After a colleague filed a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), the petitioner participated in the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) inquiry.

On 19 June 2026, the NCSC repatriated him to his parent cadre, stating that the decision was made “in view of” the allegations and inquiry.

The petitioner challenged the order, contending, among other things, that it lacked the Chairman’s approval, was made without furnishing him the ICC report or hearing him, and was issued without the three months’ advance notice contemplated by the DoPT Office Memorandum.

He had withdrawn an earlier application before the Central Administrative Tribunal with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

The High Court had directed that he be treated as on leave pending the petition.

A deputationist has no indefeasible right to continue in the borrowing department and may be repatriated to the parent department (Kunal Nanda v. Union of India, (2000) 5 SCC 362).

Under the NCSC Gazette Notification dated 18 January 1999, the Secretary is the appointing and disciplinary authority for Group ‘B’ posts; Rule 2.6 of the NCSC Rules of Procedure requires important administrative matters to be placed before the Chairperson.

Section 13 of the POSH Act requires the ICC report to be made available to the concerned parties; Sections 12 and 19(a) respectively address measures during an inquiry, including transfer in the circumstances specified by the Act, and the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace.

Paragraph 9 of the DoPT Office Memorandum provides for at least three months’ advance notice in cases of premature reversion; the Court held that it does not require the borrowing department to retain a deputationist where his continued presence is a cause for concern.

The Court rejected the contention that the Chairperson’s prior approval was necessary: the petitioner held a Group ‘B’ post, no provision requiring such approval was identified, and the respondents stated that the matter had been brought to the Chairperson’s attention.

The Court noted that the ICC report had not been provided and that an order founded on the allegations could not be made without the report and an opportunity to be heard.

It nevertheless considered the order in light of the ICC’s recommendation for disciplinary action, the employer’s duty to maintain workplace safety, and the respondents’ explanation that repatriation was a protective measure rather than disciplinary action.

It also held that the three-month notice provision did not compel the NCSC to retain the petitioner at the workplace and, in any event, found no prejudice from the absence of notice, given the time elapsed and the Court’s interim leave direction.

It clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the POSH allegations and that its observations were limited to deciding the petition.

Pending applications were also disposed of.