Termination Based on Stigmatic Allegations Under POSH Act Requires Adherence to Statutory Procedures and Natural Justice.

The petitioner was appointed as a District Child Protection Officer (DCPO) on a contract basis in 2020, with extensions granted until March 2023.

In 2022, two female employees filed complaints alleging sexual harassment at the workplace.

A three-member Enquiry Committee was constituted, which concluded in its report dated 10.11.2022 that the petitioner had physically and mentally harassed the complainants.

Based on this report and a subsequent show-cause notice where the petitioner admitted to calling a complainant to his residence (though disputing the harassment), the respondent No. 3 issued the impugned order dated 10.02.2023, terminating the petitioner from service.

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner’s contract service on grounds of sexual harassment without following the mandatory procedure under the POSH Act and principles of natural justice was legally sustainable.

2. Whether a contractual employee is entitled to a regular enquiry before termination when the order carries a stigma affecting future employment.

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), specifically Section 9 regarding the limitation period for complaints.

Section 10 of the POSH Act regarding mandatory conciliation efforts before initiating an inquiry.

Rule 13(4) of the POSH Rules regarding punishment for misconduct.

Even for outsourcing or contractual employees, a regular enquiry is mandatory if the termination is based on allegations that are "affective and stigma on their future employment".

Under Section 9 of the POSH Act, complaints must specify dates of incidents to ensure they fall within the three-month limitation period, which was absent here.

The internal committee failed to comply with Section 10, which mandates attempting conciliation before proceeding with a full inquiry.

The Court observed that the petitioner was not served with a copy of the complaints or the Enquiry Report, nor was he given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

The Court rejected the respondents' argument that the petitioner's "admission" of calling a worker to his house was sufficient for summary dismissal, noting that the petitioner had simultaneously disputed the harassment allegations.

The court held that because the termination was stigmatic, the petitioner was entitled to the protections of natural justice regardless of his contractual status.

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the termination order dated 10.02.2023, directing reinstatement into service without back wages, with liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings by following the due process of law.