By Anuradha Gandhi and Rishabh Gupta
Introduction
In a significant judgement, highlighting the struggles of aggrieved women at workplace to get justice, the Delhi High Court has ruled that “mere exoneration in the Departmental Enquiry cannot be the sole basis for discharging a person accused of sexual harassment, stressing that departmental or ICC findings are not binding in criminal proceedings.”[1]
The court stressed upon the existing notion prevalent in the society that despite the existence of stringent laws which provides for gender neutrality and equality to provide safe working environment, the mindset of “men in workplace” remains unchanged and neither education nor high government position can shield a woman from being harassed.
Facts of the Case
In the present case, the Complainant was a qualified lady and a member of Kashmir Administrative Services, posted as a Manager in Resident Commission, Jammu & Kashmir – New Delhi Office, who filed a complaint (dated December 31, 2014) in the Department of Hospitality and Protocol, Jammu and Kashmir Government, against her senior serving as an Additional Resident Commissioner in the same office (hereinafter referred to as “Accused/Petitioner”) under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “POSH Act”).
The complaint was forwarded to the Chairperson of the Internal Complaint Committee which initiated an enquiry under the POSH Act wherein it was concluded that the allegations against the Accused were not established (dated February 11, 2015).
Separately, on January 06, 2015, during the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the Complainant lodged a Police Complaint in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, under Sections 354A[2], 506[3] and 509[4] of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ordered a trial against the Accused for the alleged offences and accordingly, summons were issued.
The Accused preferred a Criminal Revision Petition against the summoning order which was dismissed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge on the grounds that there were sufficient corroboration to show that the Accused was rightly summoned by the court under the alleged sections. Thereafter, the Accused filed a petition in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on the ground that the concludings of the Committee under the POSH Act cannot be set aside by the courts.
Issues before the Court
The High Court dealt with the following two issues:
- Whether the Disciplinary Enquiry Report/ICC Report is binding in the Criminal Trial?
- Whether FIR or Chargesheet can be filed, merely because the Petitioner/Accused had been exonerated in a Departmental Enquiry?
- Whether Prima Facie Case Under S. 354-A/509 IPC is Made Out from the Charge-Sheet?
Arguments of the Petitioner/Accused
- The Petitioner argued that as per the police investigation, none of the messages indicated any kind of misbehavior on part of the Petitioner and a cordial relationship existed between the two parties.
- Both the courts have acted in excess of their jurisdiction in summoning the Petitioner as there was no substantial evidence to establish a charge against him. It was argued that various witnesses whose statements were recorded did not supported Complainant’s version and that the Ld. CMM and the Ld. ASJ have failed to appreciate that the allegations in the FIR are absurd and inherently improbable.
- Both the Police Report and the Report of ICC Committee showed that after the appreciation of available evidence, the allegations against the Petitioner could not be established and the Complaint seems to have been triggered because of the fear of alleged transfer of Complainant from Delhi.
Arguments of the Complainant
- The Complainant placed reliance on the case, Ajit Kumar Nag vs. G.M. (P.J.) Indian Oil Corporation[5] wherein it was held that “departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are entirely different with different objectives and operates in different fields. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation.”
- It was further submitted that Writ proceedings against an Order dismissing a Revision Petition, is not maintainable and the only remedy is under Section 482 CrPC which provides for inherent powers of the High Court.
Final Trial
The Hon’ble High Court pronounced its judgements on the following issues:
- Whether the Court is bound to accept the Closure Report submitted in an FIR?
The court while taking reliance of the case, Bhagwat Singh vs. Commissioner of Police[6] ruled that the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate was well within his powers to form an independent opinion and to take the cognizance of the Report, irrespective of the Closure Report filed by the Investigative Officer. The court reasoned that if in the opinion of the police no offence appears to have been committed and where such a report has been made, the Magistrate has following three courses to adopt:- Either to accept the report and drop the proceeding; or
- He may disagree with the report and take cognizance of the offence; or
- He may direct further investigation to be made by the police
- Whether the Disciplinary Enquiry Report/ICC Report is binding in the Criminal Trial?
While deciding the above question, the Court observed that, criminal offences are distinctly defined under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and have defined connotations. The parameters for adjudicating a criminal offence are different from that under the Departmental Enquiry. Since the Departmental Enquiry in the present case pertained to the alleged sexual offences as defined under POSH Act, it cannot be said that there is any binding effect of the observations made therein. - Whether FIR or Chargesheet can be filed, merely because the Petitioner/Accused had been exonerated in a Departmental Enquiry?
The Court found that merely because the Petitioner/Accused has been exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry, it cannot be the sole basis for discharging him in the present FIR. The court came to above conclusion by referring the following cases:- M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Girish V[7], wherein the Supreme Court has held that Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously.
- Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miyan<[8] wherein it held that “the purpose underlying departmental proceedings is distinctly different from the purpose behind prosecution of offenders for commission of offences by them. While criminal prosecution for an offence is launched for violation of a duty that the offender owes to the society, departmental enquiry is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service. The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not same as of the criminal trial. It was observed that conceptually the two operate in different spheres that are intended to serve distinctly different purposes”.
- Whether Prima Facie Case Under S. 354-A/509 IPC is Made Out from the Charge-Sheet?
The court ruled that a prima facie case has been made out against the Accused under the alleged offences under Sections 354-A and 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 due to the availability of sufficient material by way of statement of the Complaisant and the witnesses.The Court while arriving at this conclusion mentioned the persisting challenges that is being faced by the women at workplaces and mentioned that, “Although right to equal opportunity of work has been recognized as a fundamental right, however, women still face challenges due to the presence of “masculine strategists” who have specious reasons to justify their acts and attitudes.”
Based on the above reasoning, it ruled that, “Before considering whether ICC findings are sufficient to show that a prime facie case has been made out, it is essential to consider the alleged comments made from the victim’s perspective and not stereotyped notions of what is acceptable behavior as it would result in reinforcement of the prevailing discrimination.
It also relied on the judgement pronounced in the case of Kerry Ellison vs. Nicholas F. Brady, wherein it was stated that, “As men tend to view some forms of comments/acts as harmless social interactions to which, only overly sensitive woman would object. However, the victim’s perspective needs to be understood to analyse whether such conduct which many may found unobjectionable, may offend the women.[9]”
Conclusion
The High Court’s ruling has underlined that women’s complaints deserve independent judicial scrutiny by making it clear that internal enquiries and criminal trials operate in distinct spheres with different standards of proof and purposes.
It is to be noted that even the Internal Complaint Committee nowhere in its order has stated that the complaint made by the Complainant was false or frivolous. Moreover, the High Court accepted the Statement of the Complainant to be corroborated with independent witnesses.
In this context it may be observed that the courts have repeatedly stated that the sole testimony of the Complainant is sufficient to bring home a conviction, if it is found to be of sterling quality. As the Complainant in this case made specific allegations, the same cannot be trashed or claimed to be motivated without being put to the test of trustworthiness by way of trial. The statement of the Complainant must be read holistically and not arbitrarily by taking out specific parts out of the context to check whether a clear-cut case is made under the alleged offences or not.
[1] ASIF HAMID KHAN vs. STATE & Ors., Dated August 28, 2025,
W.P. (CRL.) 3501/2018 & CRL.M.A. 47419/2018
[2] Section 354A IPC, A man committing, “physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures”, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment and shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
[3] Section 506 IPC, Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
[4] Section 509 IPC, Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, [shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine].
[5] 2005 (7) SCC 764
[6] (1985) 2 SCC 537
[7] (2014) 3 SCC 636
[8] (1997) 2 SCC 699
[9] 924 (F).2d 872