India: Conciliation Under the POSH Act Does Not Bar the Employer from Initiating Independent Disciplinary Proceedings Against an Employee Accused of Sexual Harassment

Authors: Avik Biswas, Ivana Chatterjee, and Kevin Kennedy

The Gauhati High Court held that conciliation arrived at under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) does not bar an employer from initiating independent disciplinary proceedings under its service rules against an employee accused of sexual harassment.

The dispute arose from a complaint of sexual harassment lodged by a woman officer (“Complainant”) against her superior officer (“Respondent”), both employees of the Airports Authority of India (“Company”). The complaint was placed before the Internal Committee (“IC”) constituted under the POSH Act. The parties opted for conciliation in the manner provided under the POSH Act which resulted in an agreement that the parties would not work in proximity. In view of this settlement, and the Complainant’s unwillingness to pursue a full inquiry, the IC concluded the proceedings and recorded an observation in its report that evidence was lacking.

Subsequently, the Complainant objected to the IC’s observation of “lack of evidence” in its report and brought to the Company’s notice additional material in the form of a screenshot of an allegedly objectionable message. While the IC declined to reopen the proceedings citing the statutory bar under Section the POSH Act as discussed below, the Company initiated an independent departmental inquiry under the applicable service rules. The Respondent challenged the initiation of disciplinary proceedings before the Gauhati High Court.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the departmental proceedings, and expunged the IC’s observation that there was “lack of evidence,” primarily relying on Section 10(4) of the POSH Act. Aggrieved by the  above, the Company preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court.

The principal question before the Division Bench was whether Section 10(4) of the POSH Act, which bars further inquiry by the IC after conciliation, also operates as a bar on the Company’s power to initiate independent disciplinary proceedings under its service rules. The Court noted that Section 10(4) stipulates that once a settlement is arrived at, “no further inquiry shall be conducted by the IC or the Local Committee.” Section 19 of the POSH Act casts a statutory obligation on employers to provide a safe working environment and to take appropriate action in cases of sexual harassment.

The Court drew a clear distinction between the jurisdiction of the IC under the POSH Act and the Company’s disciplinary authority under service rules. The Court held that a plain reading of Section 10(4) makes it evident that the statutory bar is limited to “any further inquiry” by the IC or the Local Committee. The provision does not extend to, nor does it curtail, the Company’s independent disciplinary jurisdiction flowing from applicable service rules.

The Court emphasised that the POSH Act is a “minimum protective legislation” intended to ensure safe workplaces. Interpreting Section 10(4) as a blanket prohibition on all further action would undermine the very purpose of the statute and dilute the Company’s obligation under Section 19 to maintain a safe working environment. It was further observed that the Company’s authority to inquire into misconduct cannot be extinguished merely because the parties opted for conciliation at an earlier stage, particularly where additional material subsequently comes to light.

Accordingly, the Court set aside that part of the Single Judge’s judgement which quashed the initiation of departmental proceedings against the charged officer. However, the Court affirmed the deletion of the IC’s observation regarding a “lack of evidence,” holding that since the IC’s inquiry was truncated due to conciliation, it could not have conclusively recorded such a finding. The Court directed that the departmental proceedings be resumed from the stage at which it was halted, with full opportunity of defence to the Respondent.

The Respondent has preferred an appeal against the decision of the Division Bench before the Supreme Court of India, which is presently listed for hearing in April 2026.

Key Action Points for Human Resources and In-house Counsel

Employers should note that conciliation under Section 10 of the POSH Act does not exhaust or negate their disciplinary powers under applicable service rules. While the IC is statutorily barred from conducting a further inquiry after conciliation under the POSH Act has concluded, employers retain the authority to initiate independent disciplinary proceedings to address misconduct and ensure workplace safety, subject to the need of the hour. Organisations should ensure that their service rules clearly articulate the scope of disciplinary action independent of proceedings under the POSH Act, and that internal decision-making distinguishes between the IC’s statutory role and the employer’s broader obligations. This position, however, is subject to the outcome of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court of India against the Division Bench’s decision and may require reconsideration depending on the final determination of the Supreme Court.