Case Brief
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Parties: ca Nitesh Parashar v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ICAI & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. (C) No. 88/2023
Date of Order: 05.01.2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan
Facts: X (Respondent No. 3) filed her first complaint of sexual harassment with Respondent No. 4 against Y (Petitioner). When X did not receive a response, X filed another complaint before the Chairman of the disciplinary committee. The IC issued a hearing notice to Y. Y filed a petition seeking X’s complaint and notice issued by IC to be quashed.
Law: Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013
Analysis:
Y made the following submissions:
- No action had been taken in respect of the complaint for more than 60 days.
- Y was not named in the complaint.
- Allegations of sexual harassment had not been made.
- Second complaint was undated.
- Both complaints contain allegations in respect of the same incident. Two proceedings in regard to the same incident are not possible.
ICAI made the following submissions:
- The first representation made by X was only a grievance and not a complaint under the POSH Act.
- Since the complaint was not made within a period of three months from the date of the incident, X was asked to file an affidavit seeking condonation of delay. The delay was accordingly condoned by the IC.
- The IC tried to conciliate the matter between X and Y.
- There is only one complaint and only one inquiry is being conducted.
Based on the submissions of the parties, the court observed as follows: “19. … (i) Complaints containing allegations of sexual harassment deserves to be treated with a certain amount of seriousness and responsibility and accordingly, the same have to be inquired into and taken to their logical conclusion for it is both in the interest of the complainant as well as the person against whom the allegations of sexual harassment have been leveled.”
The court also made the following additional observations:
- There is nothing to show that Y is being subjected to two separate inquiries.
- It is not the Y’s case that inquiry into the complaint has been concluded or has culminated into a report.
- There is no substance in Y’s contention that as the inquiry proceedings have not been concluded within a period of 90 days, the same will be vitiated. Y has neither shown any prejudice to him account of delay, nor that such delay is attributable to X.
- Complaint of sexual harassment and the inquiry proceeding emanating therefrom cannot be quashed merely because the internal complaints committee failed to complete the inquiry within the time frame specified under the POSH Act.
- The court relied on the decision of the Tripura High Court in Vinay Kumar Rai v. The Union of India and Ors. arising out of W.P.(C) 596/2019 vide Order dated 17.09.2021 wherein it was seen that the time limit provided u/s. 11(4) of the POSH cannot be seen as a terminal point beyond which the inquiry cannot be continued.
Conclusion:
No prima facie case was made out for grant of any interim relief. Subsequently, the court was noted of the closure of IC proceedings. In light of the same, the matter was disposed of as infructuous vide Order dated 28.03.2023.
By – Divya R, Trainer & External Member, Chief Quality Officer (Social Media)