22.07.2026 58 sdas WPA 2968 of 2026 Shri Suman Mukherjee Vs. The Internal Complaints Committee & Ors. Mr. Atreya Chakraborty Mr. Arkaprabha Chowdhury Mr. Debayudh Ganguly ….. for the petitioner Mr. D. R. Mukherjee Mr. Arijit Dey ….. for the respondent no. 1 1. The petitioner was subjected to an enquiry and punishment thereof by virtue of a proceeding initiated on the basis of a complaint, made by a colleague, of sexual harassment. The Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “ICC”) had reached a finding against the petitioner, which he had carried in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The finding of the ICC had been set aside by the Appellate Authority, thereby remanding the matter back to the ICC for consideration de novo. 2. Upon consideration, the ICC has now come to a finding in terms of its enquiry dated September 22, 2025 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, once again. 3. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has raised the following issues : 2 (a) The ICC has not considered the parameters set forth by the Appellate Authority; (b) The ICC, on the basis of its finding in the first round that three of the witnesses were “interested witnesses”, did not call these witnesses in the second round; (c) The ICC has proceeded to come to the findings against the petitioner in an arbitrary and one sided manner. 4. On these aforestated grounds, the petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as espoused by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India & Ors. vs. R. Reddappa & Anr. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 269. 5. Mr. Chakraborty placed reliance on this decision to urge that even when there is an Appellate Authority, the Writ Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent authorities, submits that there being an Appellate Forum, which is almost in the nature of statutory appeal, the writ petition should not be entertained. The petitioner had, on the earlier occasion, approached the Appellate Forum and exhausted the remedies available. However, on this instance, the petitioner has chosen to bypass the 3 Appellate Forum and approach this Court directly, which is impermissible. 7. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the documents and the judgments relied upon by them. It is not in doubt that in a given situation, a writ petition can be entertained, even if there is an alternative or efficacious remedy available. However, in this case, the remedy lies in an appeal before the Appellate Forum. There are no pressing circumstances, like the one which prevailed in the case referred to by Mr. Chakraborty. In that particular matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the right of 800 employees was questioned for participating in a strike called by their respective unions. The matter was pending for more than a decade and the question of an alternative or efficacious remedy was turned down as the order passed was held to be illegal and not efficacious in any manner. 8. In this matter, there is no such issue involved. The order passed by the ICC has not been construed as illegal nor has it been construed as one in violation of the principles of natural justice of the petitioner. The findings of the ICC are not the subject matter in this writ petition. The same are subject to the consideration of an Appellate Authority, which has been constituted to look into such matters. 4 9. The petitioner is granted liberty to proceed before the Appellate Authority on the selfsame cause of action as in this writ petition. 10. With the aforestated directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 11. There will be no order as to costs. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon usual undertakings. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)