In a significant judgment on IC jurisdiction and workplace sexual harassment, the Bombay High Court in the case of Dr Mohinder Kumar vs The Chairman, NABARD (Writ Petition 1635 of 2021) decided on 12.1.26 has ruled in favour of a senior bank manager in a case involving workplace gossip, secret recordings and the limits of a POSH committee’s authority. The court set aside a disciplinary action imposed on the manager, holding that the internal complaints committee exceeded its powers under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013.
The judgment, arose from complaints filed by several female colleagues against the public sector Bank manager, after he secretly video recorded them chatting and gossiping in the office. The women alleged that Manager’s (Kumar’s) conduct, including recording interactions on his mobile phone without their consent, created a hostile work environment.
Also read – Vedanta Appoints Neha Sharma as Group CHRO
A Central Complaints Committee (CCC) constituted under the POSH Act examined the matter and concluded that while the manager’s actions did not amount to sexual harassment under the statutory definition, his conduct was “objectionable” and recommended disciplinary action. Based on this, the bank imposed a reprimand, which in turn was treated by the disciplinary authority as a factor in issuing a compulsory retirement order against him.
The bank Manager challenged the ICC authority to recommend disciplinary action against him. High Court disagreed with the committee’s recommendation. Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande held that once a POSH committee determines that the conduct complained of does not constitute sexual harassment under the Act, it has no jurisdiction to recommend any punitive action against the respondent. Under Section 13(2) of the POSH Act, the committee’s mandate is limited to either upholding the complaint and recommending appropriate action, or dismissing it and recommending that no action is required; it cannot step outside this framework into general disciplinary territory if no harassment is found.
Considering the facts of the case, court held , “Upon going through the order of penalty imposed by the Competent Authority dated September 24, 2020, it is evident that the disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty of ‘Reprimand’ solely on the basis of the recommendation made by the CCC. The CCC is a Committee specially constituted to address the grievances of sexual harassment, hence once the Committee has formed an opinion that the conduct of the Petitioner did not constitute ‘sexual harassment’, it could not have recommended any action against the Petitioner. It should have simply closed the matter and dismissed the complaint.” The court stated that the CCC in the instant case, has acted beyond its powers.
The court further found that the disciplinary authority erred by imposing punishment solely based on the committee’s recommendation, without conducting an independent inquiry or applying its own mind to the allegations. On this ground too, both the reprimand and related orders were quashed as legally unsustainable.
High Court highlighted the strict statutory boundaries of the POSH Act, emphasizing that it is intended exclusively to address conduct of a sexual nature and protect employees from such behaviour — not to serve as a general grievance mechanism for workplace discomfort or behavioural norms.
