Gauhati High Court recently has held that a settlement reached through conciliation under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) does not prevent an employer from commencing independent disciplinary proceedings against an employee accused of sexual misconduct if new evidence emerges.
The ruling was delivered on 9 December 2025 by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury in Airports Authority of India & Ors. v. Praveen VS, WA No. 149 of 2025
Background
The dispute arose within the Airports Authority of India (AAI) when a woman officer filed a sexual harassment complaint against her senior officer before the employer’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act. During proceedings, both parties opted for conciliation to reduce workplace tension. This resulted in an agreement that they would not work in proximity.
Because the complainant did not pursue a full inquiry, the ICC concluded proceedings and noted that “evidence was lacking.” Later, the complainant submitted additional evidence — including a screenshot of a message allegedly sent by the respondent — and objected to the ICC’s observation. The ICC declined to reopen the inquiry, citing Section 10(4) of the POSH Act, which states that “no further inquiry shall be conducted by the Internal Committee or Local Committee” after conciliation.
Also read – Bank of America elevates Vivek Menon as Vice President – Talent Acquisition
Faced with this impasse, AAI initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under its service rules, treating the new material as a basis for action. The accused challenged the disciplinary action before a Single Judge of the High Court, which quashed the departmental proceedings and expunged the ICC’s “lack of evidence” observation.
What HC held:
- Section 10(4) of the POSH Act only bars further inquiry by the ICC or Local Committee after conciliation; it does not operate as a blanket prohibition on an employer’s independent disciplinary powers under its service rules.
- The Court emphasized that the employer’s disciplinary authority — flowing from service rules and broader obligations — survives even after POSH conciliation, especially where new evidence justifies further action.
- The POSH Act was described as a “minimum protective statute”; interpreting Section 10(4) as barring all subsequent action would defeat the Act’s objective of ensuring safe workplaces.
- The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s quashing of the disciplinary proceedings and directed that they resume from the stage they were halted, with full procedural fairness, while upholding the deletion of the ICC’s “lack of evidence” remark on the basis that the ICC’s inquiry had been truncated.
Impact
The judgment clarifies a key aspect of workplace law: conciliation outcomes under PoSH do not automatically extinguish an employer’s disciplinary rights. Employers may pursue disciplinary action under service rules even after settlement through conciliation, particularly where fresh or additional evidence surfaces after the POSH process has ended. This preserves an institution’s ability to maintain workplace discipline and safety beyond the statutory PoSH framework.
Alok Bhasin Advocate and author of PoSH law book says, that this distinction between ICC jurisdiction and an employer’s disciplinary authority helps uphold the statutory duty to ensure a safe work environment (under Section 19 of the POSH Act) without allowing conciliation to be used as a shield against accountability.
