- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27196 WP No. 16024 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 16024 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SUMANTH KANTI S/O NAGARAJ P.V, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SENIOR MANAGER- SOURCING AND LOGISTICS, EMPLOYEE NO. 40001803, AT AND S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, RESIDING AT NO. 365, E BLOCK, VIJAYANAGAR, 3RD STAGE, MYSORE – 570 017, KARNATAKA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUSHAL KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AT AND S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (CIN- U85110KA1988PTC025863) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 12A, 12B AND 82, INDUSTRIAL AREA, NANJANGUD – 571 301, MYSURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 571 301, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. 2. SUREKSHA S CHAIRPEESON, INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27196 WP No. 16024 of 2026 (POSH), AT AND S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NANJANGUD – 571 301. 3. ADV. S. ANURADHA, EXTERNAL MEMBER, INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE(POSH), AT AND S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO. 523, 3RD CROSS, 15TH MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE – 570 009. 4. MS. KRUTHIKA K.R. RANI, COMPLAINANT, FORMER TEAM LEAD- SOURCING, AT AND S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, (ADDRESS ON RECORD WITH THE IC). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KASTURI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. J. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IC ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS IN THEIR ENTIRELY INCLUDING THE SUMMONS DATED 17.02.2026 ALL NOTICES ISSUED THEREAFTER ALL ENQUIRY SITTING CONDUCTED ON 20.02.2026 AND 23.02.2026 AND ON ANY SUBSEQUENT DATES, THE IC REPORT DATED 23.04.2026 AND ANY ACTION BASED THEREON INCLUDING TERMINATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.02.2026 FILED BY R4 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27196 WP No. 16024 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: a) Quash the IC enquiry, proceedings in their entirety, including the summons dated 17 February 2026 at Annexure-G, all notices issued thereafter, all enquiry sittings conducted on 20 February 2026 and 23 February 2026 and on any subsequent dates, the IC Report dated 23.04.2026 at Annexure- T, and any action based thereon including termination in connection with the complaint dated 12 February 2026 at Annexure-C filed by Respondent No.4; b) Quash the Show Cause Notice dated 29.04.2026 at Annexure-U issued by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner proposing termination, as the same is based on a void IC Report and vitiated proceedings; c) Direct that if any fresh proceedings are initiated before a reconstituted IC on the same complaint, the issue of limitation under Section 9(1) of the POSH Act shall be considered and determined as a threshold preliminary issue, and proceedings on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27196 WP No. 16024 of 2026 merits shall not commence unless and until a reasoned written order condoning the delay is passed; d) Direct Respondent No.2 to forthwith recuse herself from any reconstituted IC proceedings in view of her role as a material witness; e) Direct that no reconstituted IC shall include any person who has a prior or existing financial, contractual, matrimonial, or professional relationship with any party, in compliance with Section 4(2)(c) of the POSH Act; f) Direct Respondent No.1 to forthwith provide the Petitioner with complete copies of all minutes of proceedings, submissions, and documents placed before the IC in connection with the said complaint. g) Direct the Respondents to await the outcome of the DC enquiry before initiating any adverse action against the Petitioner; h) Award costs of these proceedings in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents; and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27196 WP No. 16024 of 2026 i) Pass such other and further orders, writs and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the interests of justice. 2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 is the complainant, who has lodged the complaint against the petitioner. Respondent No.4 filed a complaint with the IC, approximately 18 months after the alleged incident, and IC issued a summons to the petitioner providing three calendar days notice for hearing and first enquiry sitting was held on 20.02.2026 and second enquiry was held on 23.02.2086. After holding an enquiry by IC, it has submitted a report dated 23.02.2026 holding the charges were proved against the petitioner's and recommendation for termination. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with the report submitted by IC. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice and IC report. The petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents in initiating the proceedings against the petitioner, filed this writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27196 WP No. 16024 of 2026 3. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel Sri K.Kasturi, for the respondents. 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as an efficacious remedy provided under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act, 2013’). He submits that the petitioner without exhausting efficacious remedy, filed this writ petition. 5. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BHIKHANI DEVI AND ETC VS. UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN SLP (C) NOS.28802-28804/2019 disposed of on 01.06.2026, and also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of YOGESH MAHLA VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS REPORTED IN 2026 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27196 WP No. 16024 of 2026 LIVELAW (SC) 103. He submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable and the fundamental rights are involved in the writ petition. He submits that the proceedings initiated by the respondents are in violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that no sufficient opportunity was provided for the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. 7. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of MS (X) VS. INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE AND OTHERS IN W.P.NO.8127/2019 disposed of on 30.09.2024. He has placed reliance on the said judgment on the ground that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27196 WP No. 16024 of 2026 Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is not in dispute that respondent No.4 lodged the complaint against the petitioner. An enquiry was held by IC committee and the order came to be passed. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of termination with a memo. The petitioner has not made a specific prayer in regard to the challenging the order of termination dated 25.05.2026. 10. Admittedly, as per Section 18 of the Act of 2013, which provides an efficacious remedy i.e., appeal, which reads as under: 18. Appeal.—(1) Any person aggrieved from the recommendations 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 subsection (2) of section 14 or section 17 or non- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27196 WP No. 16024 of 2026 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 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. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner instead of preferring an appeal has filed this writ petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of RIKHAB CHAND JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in CIVIL APPEAL NO.6719/2012 held in para Nos.10 and 11, which reads thus: “10. We may profitably refer, in this context, to the Constitution Bench decision in Thansingh Nathmal Vs. A.Mazid, Superintendent of Taxes. In Thansingh Nathmal (supra), this Court had the occasion to lay down a principle of law which is salutary and not to be found in any other previous decision rendered by it. The principle, plainly, is that, if a remedy is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27196 WP No. 16024 of 2026 available to a party before the high court in another jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction should not normally be exercised on a petition under Article 226, for, that would allow the machinery set up by the concerned statute to be bye-passed. 11. Since the appellant had a remedy by way of a reference before the High Court against the order dated 23rd June, 2000 of the CEGAT, we do not consider refusal to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant to be so fundamentally incorrect that interference is warranted.” (emphasis supplied) 12. Considering the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of YOGESH MAHLA (Supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and further, the petitioner has also not challenged the order of termination dated 25.05.2026. He has not made a specific prayer for challenging the order of termination dated 25.05.2026. The prayer made by the petitioner is in general. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27196 WP No. 16024 of 2026 13. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 2. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order under Section 18 of the Act, 2013, if desired. 3. Registry is directed to return all the certified copy after retaining a photocopy of the same. 4. The parties are directed to co-operate with the Inquiry Officer for early consideration of enquiry proceedings. 5. The submission is placed on record. 6. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB