By Anuradha Gandhi, Isha Sharma and Abhishekta Sharma
Introduction:
In December 2025, a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury delivered a significant judgment in Airports Authority of India & Ors. vs Praveen VS[1] (WA No. 149 of 2025). The Court clarified the scope of Section 10(4) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), holding that conciliation under the Act bars only further inquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) or Local Committee, and does not preclude an employer from initiating independent disciplinary proceedings under applicable Service Rules if circumstances so warrant.
Background
In 2022, a complaint of sexual harassment was filed by Assistant Manager of the Airport Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as AAI) against a Joint General Manager posted at Imphal Airport. The ICC initiated the proceedings under the POH Act. However, during the course of inquiry, both parties opted for conciliation under the Section 10(1) of the POSH Act.[2]
The terms of conciliation included maintain professional distance and avoiding proximity, with no monetary settlement involved. Consequently, ICC closed the complaint, observing that no further inquiry would be conducted.
Post conciliation, the complainant submitted new additional evidence in the form of a screenshot of an objectionable message. The ICC refused reopening as per Section 10(4) of the POSH Act, which prohibits continuation of inquiry once a settlement has been reached.
Thereafter, AAI initiated independent departmental proceedings in October, 2022 and issued a charge sheet in January 2023. The Respondent challenged this via a writ petition[3], which a learned Single Judge allowed in February 2024 and quashed the disciplinary action on the ground that Section 10(4) barred further action after conciliation.
Matter before Division Bench
Challenging this interpretation, AAI preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court under its appellate jurisidiction. The appeal questioned whether Section 10(4) could be construed so broadly as to bar not only ICC inquiry but also independent disciplinary action by the employer under the Service Rules.
Court Ruling
The Division Bench partially allowed AAI’s appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s decision. The Court held that:
- Section 10(4) prohibits only ICC/Local Committee inquiries, it does not curtails employer’s independent disciplinary jurisdiction under the applicable Service Rules.
- The POSH Act establishes a minimum protective statutory framework against sexual harassment and does not override Service Rules unless specified, emphasizing employers’ Section 19 duty for safe workplaces.
- Additional evidence justified independent action, as ICC proceedings do not substitute disciplinary jurisdiction.
- The Court upheld deletion of the ICC’s lack of evidence, remark noting that the curtailed inquiry did not prevent the employer from conducting its own disciplinary proceedings.
[3] Praveen VS vs Airport Authority of India, WP(C) 949/2023