Cart is empty
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, challenged the inquiry report dated March 6, 2023, submitted by the Internal Committee (IC). Complainant had filed a complaint with serious allegations of rape, continuous molestation, and harassment. The complaints detailed that the misconduct was ongoing, causing continuous harm and fear of victimization for the victims. The report recommended disciplinary action against the petitioner for incidents of sexual harassment and suggested his suspension until the completion of departmental proceedings. The petitioner argued that the alleged incidents occurred between 2018 and 2019, while the complaint was filed in 2022, thus exceeding the limitation period prescribed under the POSH Act.
Contention of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that the complaint was time-barred, being filed four years after the alleged incidents, contrary to the three-month limitation period under the POSH Act. The IC could only extend this period by another three months. He further stated that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the law, denying him a fair hearing.
Contention of the Respondent:
The Tamil Nadu government argued that the complainant lodged her grievance with the Superintendent of Police, Nilgiris District, who then referred the matter to the IC. The three-month limitation period did not apply as the complaint was referred by the employer. The delay in lodging the complaint was due to the complainant’s fear. The IC conducted the enquiry fairly, relaying the petitioner’s questions to the complainant and other witnesses.
Court’s Observations:
Court observed that sexual harassment is a pervasive issue, often accompanied by fear of secondary victimization. Timelines for complaint submission, enquiry completion, and further action are meant to expedite prompt action, not serve as limitations allowing the accused to escape proceedings.
The court stated, “Whereas in cases of serious allegations such as rape or continuous molestation or harassment, the same would be a continuing misconduct and every day until the situation is redressed or brought to the notice of the appropriate authority would give rise to a fresh cause of action.”
However, the Madras HC also stated that despite the sensitivity of exposing the victim to the accused, the right to cross-examination remains crucial for ensuring fairness and impartiality in the inquiry.
Court’s Decision:
The court rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding the complaint being time-barred, holding that the complaint was not violative of Section 9 of the POSH Act.
However, the court acknowledged the petitioner’s right to cross-examine witnesses, which was not fully granted. The matter was remitted back to the IC to continue the enquiry from the current stage, ensuring the petitioner could cross-examine the witnesses. The IC was directed to complete the enquiry within 60 days, and the disciplinary committee was to proceed based on the IC’s report.
