APHC010489192018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24263/2018 Between: 1. CHANDRA PHANI SHANKAR ALLA, S/O. MR. ALLA THARAKESHWAR RAO, AGED 29 YEARS,FORMER EMPLOYEE OF H.S.B.C. R/O. FLAT NO. 44-24-17/A/3, SRI GOWRI ENCLAVE, KANNA RAO STREET, RAILWAY NEW COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM 530016. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE H S B C ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PVT LTD, HEXAGON HOUSE, GANDHI PLACE, VUDA COMPOUND, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 003, A.P. REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT, HUMAN RESOURCES MS.SHUBHRA SHARMA. 2. P V SUMITHA HONBLE MEMBER OF INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE, H.S.B.C. ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PVT. LTD, HEXAGON HOUSE, GANDHI PLACE, VUDA COMPOUND, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 003, A.P. 3. RAMESH KADIRI HONBLE MEMBER OF INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE, H.S.B.C. ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PVT. LTD, HEXAGON HOUSE, GANDHI PLACE, VUDA COMPOUND, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 003, A.P. 4. MS SUSHMITHA DULI H S B C ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PVT LTD, HEXAGON HOUSE, GANDHI PLACE, VUDA COMPOUND, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 003, A.P. 2 5. DIVYA DALIBANI H S B C ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PVT LTD, HEXAGON HOUSE, GANDHI PLACE, VUDA COMPOUND, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 003, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the inquiry report issued by the 1st respondent dated NIL and consequential order of termination order dated 13.02.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, contrary to the procedure enumerated under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and against to the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the termination order dated 13.02.2018 passed by the 1st respondent in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to expedite this Writ Petition WP.No. 24263/2018 by posting the case for a final hearing in the interest of justice IA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to consider my Writ petition as urgent and expedite this writ Petition W.P.No. 24263/2018 by posting the case for a final hearing in the interest of justice IA NO: 3 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 3 Pleased to consider my Writ petition as urgent and expedite this writ Petition W.P.No. 24263/2018 by posting the case for a final hearing in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be graciously pleased to permit impleading the following proposed Respondent Nos.6 & 7 as necessary parties: Union of India represented by Secretary for Ministry of Law And Justice, 4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri, Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001 as Respondent No.6, 2) Union of India represented by Secretary for Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg New Delhi-110001 Respondent No.7 in the Writ Petition WP No. 24263 of 2018 and show cause notice may be issued to them in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BALA MURALI KRISHNA P Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. (ASST SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) 2. R YELLA REDDY The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24263/2018 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the inquiry report issued by the 1st respondent dated NIL and consequential order of termination order dated 13.02.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, contrary to the procedure enumerated under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and against the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders…” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was employed with the 1st respondent-Company at its Visakhapatnam Unit. During the course of his employment, complaints alleging sexual harassment at the workplace were made against him. Pursuant thereto, the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), constituted under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short, "the POSH Act"), conducted an inquiry and submitted its report recommending termination of the petitioner's services. Acting upon the recommendations of the ICC, the competent authority of the 1st respondent passed the order dated 13.02.2018 terminating the services of the petitioner. (a) According to the petitioner, the inquiry conducted by the ICC was contrary to the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the POSH Act and 5 the Rules framed there under and was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the inquiry report and the consequential order of termination. 3. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as respondent No.1 is a private company incorporated under the Companies Act and is neither the State nor an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. (a) It is further contended that the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedies available under the POSH Act. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner neither submitted his representation before the ICC, as contemplated under the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act, nor preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act against the recommendations of the ICC and the consequential action taken thereon. (b) It is further pleaded that the ICC conducted the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the POSH Act and recommended termination of the petitioner. The employer, in compliance with Section 13(4) of the Act, implemented the recommendations of the ICC by issuing the order of termination dated 13.02.2018. On the aforesaid grounds, the 1st respondent sought dismissal of the writ petition 6 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inquiry conducted by the ICC is vitiated by gross violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the POSH Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is contended that the petitioner was denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself and, therefore, the inquiry report and the consequential order of termination are liable to be set aside. (a) Learned counsel further submitted that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly where the impugned proceedings are ex facie illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his arguments, reliance is placed on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court: (1) in case of Som Prakash Rekhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another1 (2) in case of ZEE Telefilms Ltd. And Another vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others2 (3) in case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanthi Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others vs. V.R.Rudani and Others3. 1 (1981) 1 SCC 449 2 (2005) AIR(SC) 2677 3 (1989) AIR (SC) 1607 7 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable either on account of the private character of the 1st respondent or in view of the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 18 of the POSH Act. 7. Perused the material available on record. 8. Consideration: The rival submissions have received the consideration of this Court. 9. The principal question that falls for consideration is whether this Court should entertain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the inquiry reports submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short, "the POSH Act") and the consequential order of termination dated 13.02.2018 passed by the 1st respondent. 10. The contention of the 1st respondent is twofold. Firstly, that respondent No.1 is a private company incorporated under the Companies Act and is not a "State" or an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, is not ordinarily amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Secondly, that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act, which admittedly has not been availed. 8 11. It is well settled that though the language employed in Article 226 of the Constitution is of wide amplitude, the exercise of writ jurisdiction is governed by well-recognized self-imposed limitations. A writ would ordinarily lie against the State or its instrumentalities, or against a private body only where such body performs a public function or discharges a public duty involving an element of public law. Mere incorporation under the Companies Act or the existence of statutory obligations governing certain aspects of its functioning does not by itself render every action of a private employer amenable to judicial review under Article 226. 12. In Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual and Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that disciplinary actions taken by private employers in relation to their employees ordinarily do not attract writ jurisdiction unless the action involves enforcement of a public duty or public law element. 13. The relationship between the 1st respondent and the petitioner is contractual, arising out of employment, and the impugned termination is founded upon disciplinary proceedings conducted under the service conditions read with the provisions of the POSH Act. 14. Be that as it may, even assuming that the writ petition is maintainable, another equally significant aspect cannot be ignored. The POSH Act itself 4 (1969) 1 SCC 585 9 provides a complete statutory mechanism for redressal of grievances arising out of recommendations made by the Internal Complaints Committee. 15. Section 18 of the POSH Act provides a statutory right of appeal against the recommendations made under Section 13 of the Act and against the consequential action taken thereon. Section 18 of the POSH Act reads as follows: “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-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.” 16. The existence of an efficacious statutory remedy is a well-recognized ground on which the writ Court ordinarily declines to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. Though the rule regarding alternative remedy is one of self- imposed restraint and not one affecting the jurisdiction of the Court, the consistent view of the Constitutional Courts has been that where the statute itself creates rights and liabilities and simultaneously provides a complete machinery for redressal, the aggrieved party should ordinarily be relegated to the statutory forum. 10 17. In High Court of Bombay v. Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the POSH Act, 2013, Akasa Air; XYZ 5 the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that recommendations made by an Internal Complaints Committee under the POSH Act are appealable under Section 18 of the Act and that ordinarily the High Court ought not to bypass the statutory appellate mechanism. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the inquiry suffered from gross violations of the principles of natural justice, that the procedure contemplated under Section 11 of the POSH Act was not followed, and that the petitioner was denied adequate opportunity of hearing. 19. There is no dispute with the proposition that an inquiry under Section 11 of the POSH Act is required to conform to the principles of natural justice. The second proviso to Section 11(1) requires that both parties be afforded an opportunity of hearing and that a copy of the findings be furnished to enable them to submit their representations. Rule 7 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 further prescribes the procedure for conducting the inquiry and obligates the Internal Complaints Committee to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 20. However, whether the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the Act and Rule 7 of the Rules has in fact been complied with, whether adequate 5 2025 LawSuit (Bom) 1821 11 opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, whether the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee are sustainable, and whether the consequential order of termination is legally justified are all questions which fall squarely within the scope of examination by the statutory appellate authority under Section 18 of the POSH Act. 21. The petitioner has admittedly not availed the statutory remedy of appeal. No exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated warranting bypass of the statutory remedy. The present case does not involve a challenge to the constitutional validity of any statutory provision.. 22. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner ought to avail the statutory remedy provided under Section 18 of the POSH Act. Entertaining the writ petition at this stage would amount to permitting the petitioner to bypass the legislative mechanism specifically created for adjudication of such disputes. 23. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the findings recorded by the Internal Complaints Committee, or the legality of the order of termination, this Court declines to exercise its writ jurisdiction and relegates the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy available under the Act. 24. Since the petitioner has been bona fide in prosecuting the present writ petition before this Court, the interests of justice require that an opportunity be 12 granted to avail the statutory remedy. Accordingly, if the petitioner files an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the period during which the petitioner bona fidely prosecuted the present writ petition shall be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority while considering the question of limitation, if such question arises. 25. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits in the controversy involved in the present writ petition. All contentions of both parties are left open to be urged before the Appellate Authority, which shall decide the appeal independently, on its own merits, and strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. 26. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 13.07.2026 KA 13 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24263/2018 Date: 13.07.2026 KA