- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 17946 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHOBHA C D/O CHANDRA NAIK G AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.684/15, 10TH CROSS, MANGALWARPETE, CHANNAPATNA - 562 160. WORKING AS ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES (HQ), CHANNAPATNA DIVISION, CHANNAPATNA - 562 160. …PETITIONER (BY MS. SHOBHA C., PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND IT, DAKBHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KARNATAKA CIRCLE, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL BENGALURU HQ REGION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES CHANNAPATNA DIVISION, Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 CHANNAPATNA - 562 160. 5. THE INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE, BENGALURU H.Q. REGION, APMG (BD AND MAILS), O/O CPMG, KARNATAKA CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIR PERSON, SMT. TARA V ASST. POSTMASTER GENERAL. 6. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY CHIEF POST MASTER, BENGALURU G.P.O. BENGALURU - 560 001. 7. SMT. TARA V W/O GANGA HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, CHAIRPERSON, ICC AND APMG (MAILS AND BD), O/O THE CPMG, KARNATAKA CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 01. 8. AMITH KUMAR JHA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, MEMBER, ICC AND AD, BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE, O/O CPMG, BENGALURU - 01. 9. SMT. SELVI C W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR POSTMASTER, RAJAJINAGARA HEAD POST OFFICE, BENGALURU - 560 010. 10. LAVANYA M W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, MEMBER, NGO, JANODAYA TRUST, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 BENGALURU - 46. 11. L.K.DASH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS POSTMASTER GENERAL, BENGALURU REGION, O/O CPMG, KARNATAKA CIRCLE, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 01. 12. RAJENDRAKUMAR S S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KARNATAKA CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KUMAR M. N., CGC FOR R1-5, R7-12; SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY, PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R-6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 18(1) OF THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT WORKPLACE (PREVENTION, PROHIBITION AND REDRESSAL) ACT,2013 PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REPORT DATED OF THE 28.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE R5 COMMITTEE AND CIRCULATED BY THE R3 VIDE LETTER NO.BGR/STA-II/SH01/2023 DATED 08.05.2023 AT ANNEXURE-A AND A1 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (for short 'ICC') dated 28.03.2023 submitted by the respondent No.5 and circulated by the respondent No.3 vide letter bearing No.BGR/STA-ll/SHO1/2023 dated 08.05.2023. (ii) She has also sought for compensation for non- constitution of ICC in accordance with Section 26 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short 'POSH Act, 2013'). She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to declare that the respondent Nos.6 with the aid of respondent Nos.7 to 12 have allowed the perpetrator to go scot-free and to direct the respondent No.1 to initiate suitable disciplinary action against the respondent Nos.6 to 12. (iii) She has also sought for a declaration that the respondents have violated the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others - AIR 1997 SC 3011 by flouting the rules prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in failing to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 implement the guidelines laid down in law for protection of women from sexual harassment at work place. (iv) She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to declare that the repeated transfer of the petitioner to Yadgiri and thereafter to Vijayapura is malicious, bad in law and violates her fundamental rights. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the petitioner. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that she was appointed as a Personal Assistant in the postal department and after successfully qualifying in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), she was appointed as Inspector of Posts with effect from 12.09.2012 and subsequently promoted as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices with effect from 27.11.2018. She was thereafter transferred to Channapatna Division as Assistant Superintendent of Posts (Head Quarter). (ii) She claimed that she had put in 18 years of unblemished exemplary service to the satisfaction of her - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 seniors. She claimed that respondent No.6 assumed the charge of the Superintendent of Post Office, Channapatna Division on 28.09.2022. The petitioner claimed that she faced severe personal issues and was sexually harassed by the respondent No.6, in as much as, he used to insist the petitioner to bear the lunch and refreshment expenses of higher authorities, whenever they visited Channapatna division. The petitioner claimed that respondent No.11 visited Channapatna divisional office on 17.11.2022 for inspection and the respondent No.6 took him for lunch and the lunch bill was Rs.7,658/-. She contends that though the respondent No.11 was claiming reimbursement of food bill and other tour related amenities, the respondent No.6 forced the petitioner and five other officials to pay the said lunch bill. (iii) She contends that similarly, on 04.01.2023, the audit officers visited Channapatna division in connection with a fraud case. On the said day, the respondent No.6 asked the petitioner to arrange lunch and to share the expenditure of the audit party. When the petitioner declined to bear the expenditure, the respondent No.6 shouted at the petitioner, abused her and threatened her that he will record adverse - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 remarks and recommend for disciplinary action. The respondent No.6 thereafter escalated the harassment and started torturing her for not cooperating with him for his sexual advances. The petitioner therefore proposed to lodge a complaint under POSH Act, 2013. However, the respondent No.6 failed to constitute ICC in terms of Section 4(1) of POSH Act, 2013 and did not circulate the details of the Local Complaints Committee (for short 'LCC'). Since neither ICC nor LCC was constituted and as the complaint was against respondent No.6 who incidentally was the reporting officer of the petitioner, she lodged a complaint before the Regional Office on 06.01.2023. However, the respondent No.3 instead of taking action against the respondent No.6, transferred the petitioner to General Post Office, Bengaluru on 11.01.2023. The petitioner therefore was forced to file a representation on 12.01.2023 to the respondent No.2 to defer the order of transfer till completion of enquiry. Accordingly, the order of transfer was kept in abeyance, vide order dated 17.01.2023. (iv) Thereafter the respondent No.7 vide letter dated 17.01.2023 directed the petitioner to appear before ICC for enquiry into the complaint lodged by her. Accordingly, the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 petitioner appeared on 19.01.2023, but the respondent No.8 allegedly behaved in a rude manner and snatched her mobile phone forcibly and compelled her to share password of the mobile phone and misused the phone and deleted personal data stored in the phone which purportedly put the petitioner under severe mental trauma. She alleged that after recovering from trauma, she again submitted a bias petition dated 28.01.2023 against ICC and inter alia prayed to dissolve ICC and sought permission to file police complaint with the respondent No.8. (v) She contends that when the complaint of sexual harassment was received against the employer himself and if ICC was not constituted, such complaint must have been dealt with by LCC and not by ICC. She contends that since the respondent No.6 was her reporting officer, she submitted a request dated 07.02.2023 to respondent No.2 to refer her complaint to LCC as per Section 6 of POSH Act, 2013. (vi) She contends that the respondent No.4 in terms of a memo dated 20.02.2023 intimated the petitioner that the respondent No.2 had directed him to intimate the petitioner to - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 cooperate in the enquiry being conducted by ICC. As such, the petitioner submitted her representation dated 21.02.2023 to the respondent No.2 with a prayer to issue directions to ICC to stall the enquiry and also submitted another representation dated 21.02.2023 to the respondent No.4 with a request not to insist her to appear before ICC. That being the position, the respondent No.7 called the petitioner over phone and informed her that the transfer order is issued to the respondent No.6 and that he has moved out of the division and thereby one of the reliefs sought for by her in the representation is granted and also informed her that the respondent No.2 had directed her to inform the petitioner not to prolong the matter and directed her to give an option and also told her that she may discuss with the respondent No.2 and Assistant Post Master General of Karnataka to conclude the enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner was asked to go to the office of respondent No.2 during the afternoon on 27.02.2023. (vii) The petitioner contends that out of good faith, she went to the office of respondent No.2 on 27.02.2023 and met the respondent No.7. However, the respondent No.7 informed her that the respondent No.2 is interested in the case and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 directed her not to precipitate the case and opt for conciliation as per Section 10 of the POSH Act, 2013. Though the petitioner declined for conciliation and demanded a full fledged enquiry, the respondent No.7 and other ICC members including the respondent No.8 forced the petitioner to exercise the option for conciliation and obtained a written request from the petitioner for conciliation. She contends that the request for conciliation was therefore given under duress. (viii) Thereafter, the respondent No.7 handed over a letter dated 25.02.2023 wherein she referred to a telephonic conservation between her and the petitioner which allegedly indicated the pressure exerted on the petitioner. Similarly, the respondent No.7 also handed over another letter dated 27.02.2023 wherein the respondent No.2 without appreciating any of the grounds urged by the petitioner had requested the petitioner to cooperate with enquiry by ICC. (ix) The petitioner contends that the respondent No.7 informed her that the respondent No.11 way annoyed, as she insulted him by complaining that she had paid food bill of Rs.7,658/- on 17.11.2023 and that he was determined to take - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 action against the petitioner. Following this, the respondent No.3 in terms of a letter dated 08.05.2023 supplied a copy of the enquiry report, wherein it had come to the conclusion that the incident of sexual harassment alleged by the petitioner was not proved and recommended for action against the petitioner and two witnesses. Following this, the respondent No.3 issued an order of transfer dated 17.05.2023 transferring the petitioner and the witnesses to the North Karnataka Region, when the earlier transfer order of petitioner to GPO, Bengaluru was kept in abeyance. The petitioner therefore, being aggrieved by the order of transfer, filed O.A.No.188/2023 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru where the tribunal had directed the respondents not to precipitate the matter. (x) The petitioner contends that though she had raised objections against constitution of ICC, as it was not constituted in terms of Section 4 of POSH Act, 2013 and that since the complaint was given against the reporting officer of the petitioner, the respondents ought to have referred the complaint to LCC in terms of Section 6 of the POSH Act, 2013. As such, she contended that the report of ICC dated 28.03.2023 is clearly ultra-vires and suffers from legal - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 infirmity and there is a clear error apparent on the face of record. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the report of ICC and has also sought for various other reliefs. 3. (i) The petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 who have filed an elaborate statement of objections. It is contended that as per Section 4 of the POSH Act, 2013, the respondent No.2 constituted ICC for Karnataka Circle, vide notification dated 02.11.2018. The respondent No.3 constituted ICC for Bengaluru Head Quarters Region vide notification dated 19.03.2018. The respondent No.4 constituted ICC for Channapatna division vide notification dated 09.04.2018. (ii) It is contended that as per the recruitment rules in the department of posts, the Senior Superintendent of Post offices/Superintendent of post officers are the appointing/ disciplinary authority for Group 'C' and 'D' employees. For other officers i.e., Group 'B' post i.e., Inspector of Posts and Higher Selection Grade Supervisors, the appointing/disciplinary authority would be the Regional Director of Postal Services and - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 for Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Post Master General for minor penalty and Chief Post Master General for major penalty. (iii) It is contended that the appointing authority of the petitioner being the Chief Post Master General, ICC constituted at postal division level is not applicable, as it is only applicable for Group 'C' and 'D' employees. Further ICC constituted at the Regional Level i.e., at the Bengaluru Head Quarters Region is the proper ICC in so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is claimed that Post Master General being the disciplinary authority for imposing minor penalty in respect of Assistant Superintendent of Post Officer constituted for Bengaluru Head Quarter Region vide notification dated 12.04.2021. As per the said notification, ICC consists of a Chair Person who belongs to Postal Services Group 'B' cadre officer and others, which would hold enquiry in respect of complaints lodged against Inspector of Posts, Higher Selection Grade Supervisors and Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices cadre officials. The Chair Person of ICC will be the Senior Rank Officer other than Inspector of Post, Higher Selection Grade Supervisors and Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices cadre officials. In so far as - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 Karnataka Circle is concerned, ICC was re-constituted by a notification dated 04.11.2022. (iv) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was posted as the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office (ASPO) and posted as ASPO, Channapatna postal division. It is also admitted that the respondent No.6 was promoted as the Postal Services Group 'B' Superintendent of Post Offices from ASPO and was transferred to Channapatna division on 22.09.2022 and he had reported to duty on 28.09.2022. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.12.2022 requesting the respondent No.3 to consider her transfer to any of the places mentioned in the said letter on completion of her post tenure at Channapatna. Following this, she lodged a complaint against respondent No.6 on 06.01.2023 alleging sexual harassment before ICC, Bengaluru Head Quarter Region. (v) Likewise, one Ms. Kavitha B.K. had lodged a complaint against the respondent No.6 alleging sexual harassment. The respondent No.2 reconstituted ICC, Bengaluru on 11.01.2023 to hold an enquiry into complaint lodged by the petitioner against the respondent No.6, as the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 existing ICC was headed by an officer of the same rank as that of respondent No.6. The petitioner was thereafter transferred to GPO, Bengaluru on 11.01.2023 as requested by her vide her representation dated 01.12.2022. The petitioner vide her letter dated 12.01.2023 requested to keep her transfer on hold till completion of enquiry on her complaint. Accordingly, the transfer of the petitioner was kept on hold and communicated to the petitioner on 17.01.2023. (vi) It is contended that the petitioner was asked to attend enquiry of ICC on 19.01.2023. Later ICC was reconstituted on 19.01.2023, as one of the members expressed his inability to participate in the enquiry due to medical reasons. On 19.01.2023, the petitioner appeared before ICC and submitted a letter containing additional information and requested for enquiry and early action against the respondent No.6. The petitioner was instructed to appear before enquiry on 21.01.2023. The respondent No.6 appeared before the enquiry on 21.01.2023 and submitted his reply denying the allegations made against him. ICC issued notices to Mr. Umesh B. R., Office Assistant, Channapatna Postal Division and Mr.Abhishek, working as MTS at Channapatna Postal Division and Mr. V.Sunil - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 Kumar, ASP Channapatna Postal Division. Mr. Lokesh, ASP Channapatna Postal Division and Mr. Anand, Inspector posts, Kanakapura postal Sub-division, who are the witnesses cited by the petitioner and also some staff working in Channapatna Postal Division mentioned in the complaint requiring them to appear before enquiry on 27.01.2023. On 27.01.2023 Mr. Umesh B.R., Mr.Abhishek, Mr. V.Sunil Kumar and Mr. Lokesh and Mr.Anand attended the enquiry and recorded their statements. In the said enquiry, Mr. V.Sunil Kumar deposed that he has allowed ICC to check his mobile and that ICC had verified call recordings in his mobile and copied the same to a DVD. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation to dissolve ICC alleging harassment by one of the members of ICC. She also sent a representation dated 28.01.2023 to ICC Chair Person on 30.01.2023. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.3 forwarded the petitioner's letter to ICC Chair Person from paragraph wise comments. The Chair Person of ICC fixed the meeting of ICC members on 01.02.2023 and thereafter the members of ICC held a meeting on 01.02.2023 and submitted a detailed reply to the representation. ICC kept enquiry on hold - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 till a decision was taken by the respondent No.3 on the petitioner's representation dated 28.01.2023. (vii) It is contended that on 07.02.2023, the petitioner submitted a representation through proper channel addressed to the respondent No.2 seeking permission to amend the prayer in the complaint to incorporate the words 'Local Complaints Committee' instead of 'Internal Complaints Committee'. The respondent No.3 addressed a letter to the respondent No.4 on 20.02.2023 to intimate the petitioner that her representations dated 28.01.2023 and 07.02.2023 were forwarded to the respondent No.2 and she was also directed to cooperate with the enquiry. (viii) It is contended that ICC issued notices on 20.02.2023 to Smt. B.K. Kavitha and others to attend the enquiry. Likewise on 21.02.2023, notices were issued to other witnesses to appear before the enquiry. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 21.02.2023 through proper channel and addressed to the respondent No.2 requesting him to stall further enquiry or to maintain status-quo till the disposal of her complaints dated 28.01.2023 and 07.02.2023. Likewise, Smt. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 Kavitha B.K., submitted a letter dated 22.02.2023 stating that she is not willing to attend enquiry, till disposal of her complaint dated 06.02.2023 against ICC submitted to respondent No.2. (ix) It is contended that one of the witnesses Mr. V.Sunil Kumar disclosed that he was not able to attend enquiry and requested not to insist him to attend enquiry till the disposal of his complaint dated 30.01.2023. Likewise, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 23.02.2023 to the Chair Person, ICC that until disposal of her complaints dated 28.01.2023 and 07.02.2023, the enquiry could not be proceeded with. ICC held an enquiry on 23.02.2023 and statement of witnesses were recorded. He further held enquiry on 24.02.2023 and recorded statement of one of the witnesses. The petitioner and Mr. V.Sunil Kumar did not turn up for the enquiry. Thereafter on 25.02.2023 notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before enquiry on 27.02.2023. The respondent No.2 replied on 27.02.2023 informing the petitioner that her representations dated 28.01.2023 and 07.02.2023 were considered and she was assured free and fair opportunity as per the rules and requested her to cooperate with ICC in - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 conducting enquiry. Likewise, a similar letter was addressed to Smt. Kavitha B.K. (x) On 27.02.2023 ICC held enquiry which was attended by the petitioner and she requested ICC to conclude enquiry without answering the questions of ICC about call recordings between her and her witnesses. She also submitted a letter dated 27.02.2023 and requested ICC to hold conciliation proceedings under Section 10 of the POSH Act. She also submitted a letter dated 27.02.2023 for cancellation of her transfer to GPO, Bengaluru and accommodate her in Nanjungudu or Mysore division. On the basis of the request of the petitioner for conciliation, it sought the consent of respondent No.6. The respondent No.6 refused for conciliation and requested to conduct Narco analysis test for everyone to elicit truth. (xi) ICC submitted its findings and recommendations vide report dated 28.03.2023 holding that the petitioner did not prove the complaint against respondent No.6 and recommended action against the petitioner and two others who gave false evidence in the enquiry. It is therefore contended - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 that the respondent No.3 vide his letter dated 08.05.2023 supplied a copy of the report to the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the report should not be accepted. Coincidentally in terms of transfer policy of the postal department, the petitioner and 14 others were transferred to various places on 17.05.2023 and the petitioner was transferred to North Karnataka Region after completion of her tenure of three years as ASPO Head Quarters. The petitioner requested for 80 days time to submit her reply to ICC report and also requested to supply some documents. Thereafter, she applied for commuted leave for the period 25.05.2023 to 10.08.2023 enclosing therewith a medical certificate. The respondent No.4 being the leave sanctioning authority granted the request and directed her to join the new place of posting on completion of leave period. (xii) When things stood thus, the two witnesses who deposed in favour of the petitioner who were also transferred, challenged their transfer before the Administrative Tribunal. The tribunal in terms of an order dated 01.06.2023 directed respondent Nos.1 to 4 not to precipitate the issue. Following this, the petitioner again submitted a request dated 13.06.2023 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 for granting 60 days more time to submit her reply to ICC report and again sought for certain documents. However, the petitioner did not submit her reply. She thereafter filed a contempt petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal alleging violation of the interim order of stay of her transfer. The respondents/accused in the contempt petition filed a reply in the contempt petition stating that the petitioner was transferred in terms of the policy of the department and ICC held the enquiry in accordance with law and therefore, the petitioner is bound to challenge report of ICC in accordance with the procedure prescribed and that the issue of transfer and the complaint lodged by her and the consequent report submitted by ICC has nothing to do with each other. The contempt petition was thereafter dismissed on 30.06.2023. (xiii) The petitioner submitted information in writing on 12.06.2023 against ICC members that they had relied upon the conversations recorded between her and her witnesses. She contends that based on this ICC submitted a report stating that the complaint lodged by the petitioner was false and recommended action against the petitioner. She claims that on the basis of her complaint, the Channapatna town police - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 registered Cr.No.66/2022 for various offences. She therefore, filed a rejoinder to the reply statement filed by the respondents in O.A.No.170/00188/2023 contending that the respondent No.3 has no competence to transfer her and also filed an application along with an affidavit praying to file an additional reply statement and wherein she contended that the respondent No.3 is competent to transfer the petitioner and the petitioner has a remedy to challenge it under Section 18 of the POSH Act, 2013. It is contended that criminal petitions were filed to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.66/2022 and accordingly, this Court stayed the further criminal proceedings vide order dated 01.08.2023. (xiv) The respondents contend that the petitioner on completion of her leave period submitted a representation dated 14.08.2023 to the respondent No.2 through the respondent No.4 requesting to allow her to join as ASPO, Channapatna. The respondent No.3 vide his letter dated 31.08.2023 intimated the respondent No.4 to inform the petitioner that the competent authority after examining the request of the petitioner has disposed off her representation stating that the petitioner had already relieved from - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 Channapatna division and directed her to join to new place of posting on completion of her leave period. (xv) It is contended that the tribunal has passed an order dated 27.09.2023 in O.A.No.170/00188/2023 holding that the transfer of the petitioner from Channapatna to GPO, Bengaluru was punitive, notwithstanding the fact that the transfer was in accordance with the rotational transfer policy of the department. Then the petitioner filed contempt petition on 03.10.2023 alleging that respondent Nos.1 to 4 had withheld her salary for the month of September, 2023 even though an interim order was granted on 30.08.2023 in this petition. (xvi) She contends that after disposal of proceedings by the tribunal, she was issued with a transfer order posting her as ASPO, Hassan where she has reported to duty on 13.11.2023. It is thus contended that the petitioner has been given all opportunity to participate in ICC and that ICC after conducting an enquiry submitted a report and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the report, she is bound to file her objections to the report and if the same is done, it would be - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 considered in accordance with law. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petition before this Court is not maintainable. 4. Learned Central Government Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 12 and respondent No.6/party- in-person supported the contentions of learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Central Government Counsel, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and respondent No.6/party-in-person. 6. This Court felt that before proceeding to deal with the facts of the case, it is first appropriate to check whether this petition is maintainable against the report submitted by ICC and if the petition is not maintainable, what is the remedy available to the petitioner. 7. The internal complaints committee is constituted under Section 4 of the POSH Act, 2013 which is extracted below: - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 "CONSTITUTION OF INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE 4. Constitution of Internal Complaints Committee.- (1) Every employer of a workplace shall, by an order in writing, constitute a Committee to be known as the “Internal Complaints Committee”: Provided that where the offices or administrative units of the workplace are located at different places or divisional or sub-divisional level, the Internal Committee shall be constituted at all administrative units or offices. (2) The Internal Committee shall consist of the following members to be nominated by the employer, namely:— (a) a Presiding Officer who shall be a woman employed at a senior level at workplace from amongst the employees: Provided that in case a senior level woman employee is not available, the Presiding Officer shall be nominated from other offices or administrative units of the workplace referred to in sub-section(1): Provided further that in case the other offices or administrative units of the workplace do not have a - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 senior level woman employee, the Presiding Officer shall be nominated from any other workplace of the same employer or other department or organisation; (b) not less than two Members from amongst employees preferably committed to the cause of women or who have had experience in social work or have legal knowledge; (c) one member from amongst non-governmental organisations or associations committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment: Provided that at least one-half of the total Members so nominated shall be women. (3) The Presiding Officer and every Member of the Internal Committee shall hold office for such period, not exceeding three years, from the date of their nomination as may be specified by the employer. (4) The Member appointed from amongst the non- governmental organisations or associations shall be paid such fees or allowances for holding the proceedings of the Internal Committee, by the employer, as may be prescribed. - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 (5) Where the Presiding Officer or any Member of the Internal Committee,— (a) contravenes the provisions of section 16; or (b) has been convicted for an offence or an inquiry into an offence under any law for the time being in force is pending against him; or (c) he has been found guilty in any disciplinary proceedings or a disciplinary proceeding is pending against him; or (d) has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest, such Presiding Officer or Member, as the case may be, shall be removed from the Committee and the vacancy so created or any casual vacancy shall be filled by fresh nomination in accordance with the provisions of this section. 8. The manner of lodging a complaint of sexual harassment is provided under Section 9 of POSH Act, 2013 which is extracted below: "9. Complaint of sexual harassment.- (1) Any aggrieved woman may make, in writing, a complaint of sexual harassment at workplace to the - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 Internal Committee if so constituted, or the Local Committee, in case it is not so constituted, within a period of three months from the date of incident and in case of a series of incidents, within a period of three months from the date of last incident: Provided that where such complaint cannot be made in writing, the Presiding Officer or any Member of the Internal Committee or the Chairperson of any Member of the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the woman for making the complaint in writing: Provided further that the Internal Committee or, as the case may be, the Local Committee may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the time limit not exceeding three months, if its satisfied that the circumstances were such which prevented the woman from filing a complaint within the said period. (2) Where the aggrieved woman is unable to make a complaint on account of her physical or mental incapacity or death or otherwise, her legal heir or such other person as may be prescribed may make a complaint under this section." - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 9. It is incumbent upon the ICC to take steps to settle the matter between the complainant and the perpetrator through conciliation before it proceeds to enquire into the complaint and under Section 11 of POSH Act, 2013, the manner of conduct of an enquiry is prescribed and the same is extracted below: "11. Inquiry into complaint.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 10, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall, where the respondent is an employee, proceed to make inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent and where no such rules exist, in such manner as may be prescribed or in case of a domestic worker, the Local Committee shall, if prima facie case exist, forward the complaint to the police, within a period of seven days for registering the case under section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and any other relevant provisions of the said Code where applicable: Provided that where the aggrieved woman informs the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, that any term or condition of the settlement arrived at under sub-section (2) of section 10 has not been complied with by the respondent, the Internal Committee or the Local - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 Committee shall proceed to make an inquiry into the complaint or, as the case may be, forward the complaint to the police: Provided further that where both the parties are employees, the parties shall, during the course of inquiry, be given an opportunity of being heard and a copy of the findings shall be made available to both the parties enabling them to make representation against the findings before the Committee. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the court may, when the respondent is convicted of the offence, order payment of such sums as it may consider appropriate, to the aggrieved woman by the respondent, having regard to the provisions of section 15. (3) For the purpose of making an inquiry under sub- section (1), the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; and (c) any other matter which may be prescribed. (4) The inquiry under sub-section (1) shall be completed within a period of ninety days." 10. After the enquiry a report would be submitted by ICC and the manner of submission of report is mentioned in Section 13 of POSH Act, 2013 the same reads as under: "13. Inquiry report.-(1) On the completion of an inquiry under this Act, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall provide a report of its findings to the employer, or as the case may be, the District Officer within a period of ten days from the date of completion of the inquiry and such report be made available to the concerned parties. (2) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has not been proved, it shall recommend to the employer and the District Officer that no action is required to be taken in the matter. - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 (3) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has been proved, it shall recommend to the employer or the District Officer, as the case may be- (i) to take action for sexual harassment as a misconduct in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent or where no such service rules have been made, in such manner as may be prescribed; (ii) to deduct, notwithstanding anything in the service rules applicable to the respondent, from the salary or wages of the respondent such sum as it may consider appropriate to be paid to the aggrieved woman or to her legal heirs, as it may determine, in accordance with the provisions of section 15: Provided that in case the employer is unable to make such deduction from the salary of the respondent due to his being absent from duty or cessation of employment it may direct to the respondent to pay such sum to the aggrieved woman: - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 (4) The employer or the District Officer shall act upon the recommendation within sixty days of its receipt by him." 11. Section 14 of the POSH Act, 2013 provides for punishment for false or malicious complaint and false evidence and the same is extracted below: "14. Punishment for false or malicious complaint and false evidence.- (1) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at a conclusion that the allegation against the respondent is malicious or the aggrieved woman or any other person making the complaint has made the complaint knowing it to be false or the aggrieved woman or any other person making the complaint has produced any forged or misleading document, it may recommend to the employer or the District Officer, as the case may be, to take action against the woman or the person who has made the complaint under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 9, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to her or him or where no such service rules exist, in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that a mere inability to substantiate a complaint or provide adequate proof need not - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 attract action against the complainant under this section: Provided further that the malicious intent on part of the complainant shall be established after an inquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed, before any action is recommended. (2) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at a conclusion that during the inquiry any witness has given false evidence or produced any forged or misleading document, it may recommend to the employer of the witness or the District Officer, as the case may be, to take action in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the said witness or where no such service rules exist, in such manner as may be prescribed." 12. It is only when the ICC holds that the complaint lodged by the aggrieved women is proved that it would proceed to determine the compensation payable as provided under Section 15 of POSH Act, 2013, which reads as under: 15. Determination of compensation.-For the purpose of determining the sums to be paid to the aggrieved woman under clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 13, the Internal Committee or the - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 Local Committee, as the case may be, shall have regard to- (a) the mental trauma, pain, suffering and emotional distress caused to the aggrieved woman; (b) the loss in the career opportunity due to the incident of sexual harassment; (c) medical expenses incurred by the victim for physical or psychiatric treatment; (d) the income and financial status of the respondent; (e) feasibility of such payment in lump sum or in installments." 13. Under Section 18 of POSH Act, 2013 remedy of an appeal is provided against the report of ICC and the same is extracted below: 18. Appeal.-(1) Any person aggrieved from the recommendation made under sub-section (2) of section 13 or under clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub- section (3) of section 13 or sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 14 or section 17 or non- implementation of such recommendations may prefer an appeal to the court or tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the said person or where no such service rules exist then, without prejudice to - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 provisions contained in any other law for the time being in force, the person aggrieved may prefer an appeal in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) The appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within a period of ninety days of the recommendations." 14. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal ) Rules, 2013 (for short 'Rules, 2013') is framed by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 29 of the POSH Act, 2013. 15. Rule 10 of Rules, 2013 prescribes action for false or malicious complaint or false evidence and Rule 11 of Rules, 2013 prescribes the manner of an appeal under Section 18 of POSH Act, 2013 and the same are extracted below: "10. Action for false or malicious complaint or false evidence.- Except in cases where service rules, exist, where the Complaints Committee arrives at the conclusion that the allegations against the respondent is malicious or the aggrieved woman or any other person making the complaint has made the complaint knowing it to be false or the aggrieved woman or any other person making the complaint has produced any forged or misleading document, it may recommend to the - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 employer or District Officer, as the case may be, to take action in accordance with the provisions of rule 9. 11. Appeal.- Subject to the provisions of section 18, any person aggrieved from the recommendations made under sub-section (2) of section 13 or under clauses (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 13 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 14 or section 17 or non-implementation of such recommendation may prefer an appeal to the appellate authority notified under clause (a) of section 2 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946)." 16. It cannot be disputed by the petitioner that the ICC had submitted its report as provided under Section 13(2) of the POSH Act, 2013 wherein it held that the complaint lodged by the petitioner was not proved and it recommended action to be initiated against the petitioner for lodging a false complaint. This report is referable to Section 13(2) of the POSH Act, 2013. Therefore, an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act, 2013 is prescribed. 17. Under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1965 (for short 'CCS (CCA) Rules', - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 sexual harassment at work place is also a misconduct and an employee could be proceeded against for such misconduct. The procedure for imposing penalty on an employee, for such misconduct is prescribed under CCS (CCA) Rules which mandate that the enquiry conducted by ICC would be treated as an enquiry for the purposes of initiating disciplinary proceedings. On submission of the enquiry report by ICC, it is for the disciplinary authority to notify the petitioner about the report and call upon her to submit her comments before the report of ICC is accepted. 18. It is for the disciplinary authority to thereafter take appropriate measures either to accept ICC report and exonerate the respondent No.6 or to take further action against the petitioner under Section 14 of the POSH Act, 2013. The report of the disciplinary authority may thereafter be subject to an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority or a proceeding before the Central administrative Tribunal as provided under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Therefore, when the POSH Act, 2013 provides for the procedure to be adopted before ICC report is accepted and further steps are taken on the report, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 report of ICC and grant reliefs to the petitioner. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has not only challenged the report of ICC but also sought for various other reliefs. The other reliefs cannot be granted by this Court unless the petitioner is exonerated of the charge by ICC that she has lodged a false complaint. 19. In this regard it is profitable to refer to the judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of Khajan Singh v Union of India and others - 2024 SCC Online Del 3802, where the Court in similar circumstances held as follows: "56. The above recommendation of providing the right to appeal both to the aggrieved woman and the respondent stays in consonance with the principles of natural justice and the same must be read keeping in view the clarification of the Ministry that wherever service rules prescribe the Court of law as an appellate forum, an appeal would be preferred before that Court and even in cases where service rules do not exist, a Court of law may be prescribed as the appellate forum through the Rules." 20. In that view, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. It is however open for the petitioner to submit - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC:16694 WP No. 17946 of 2023 her comments against acceptance of ICC report and it is for the disciplinary authority to pass suitable orders regarding acceptance of ICC report or otherwise. It is needless to mention that if the disciplinary authority accepts ICC report and proceeds to punish the petitioner under Section 14 of the POSH Act, 2013, the petitioner shall be entitled to challenge the same before the appellate authority and thereafter before Central Administrative Tribunal as provided under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. 21. All contentions are kept open. Similarly all the reliefs that are not considered by this Court are also kept open to be considered in appropriate proceedings. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21