Bombay High Court at Goa held ICC cannot hide instigator of false complaint as unknown source. Justice Neela Gokhale ruled omission unjustified when retraction letter clearly names responsible individual in proceedings.
The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that the Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) cannot protect a clearly identified instigator of a false sexual harassment complaint by describing them as an “unknown source” in their report,
Justice Neela Gokhale observed that once the ICC decided to rely on the complainant’s retraction letter, it could not then omit the name of the person the complainant had specifically identified as the instigator.
The Court explained that the accused employee has a statutory right to challenge an ICC report under the POSH Act when the findings affect him adversely. Accordingly, it ruled that the ICC could not record the instigator as unnamed and classify the source as “unknown” despite the retraction letter naming the person.
At the same time, the Court clarified that proceedings under Section 14 of the POSH Act cannot be used to impose consequences on third-party instigators.
The Court further stated that treating the instigator as an “unknown source” was a “valid error” that also gives rise to a cause of action for the accused employee’s appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act.
Justice Gokhale remarked,
“Having noted the contents of the retraction letter, the ICC clearly failed in the discharge of its duties to specify that the complaint was being closed on account of false allegations made against Shinde, at the behest of the instigator, who instigated the complainant,”
ALSO READ: ICC Can Probe POSH Complaints Against Employees From Any Department: Supreme Court
The Court concluded that the ICC committed a jurisdictional error by rejecting the appeal as not maintainable, and therefore quashed the ICC’s order.
Factual background
The dispute arose out of a sexual harassment complaint filed in November 2024 by a lower division clerk against her colleague in a government Industrial Training Institute governed by the State’s Directorate of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship.
The complainant alleged that the colleague harassed her on account of her disability and stared at her in an unpleasant and unprofessional manner. The accused was summoned before the ICC established under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
Respondent No. 4 (the complainant) initially asserted that there was sexual harassment, including discriminatory remarks and inappropriate conduct by the petitioner.
ICC preliminary inquiry and retraction
During the preliminary inquiry, the complainant categorically stated that she had not authored the complaint and was unaware of its contents. She further claimed that no act of sexual harassment had taken place and alleged that Respondent No. 3, the Principal of the institution, had forced her to sign the complaint by threatening future harassment.
She then submitted a written retraction withdrawing all allegations.
Based on this retraction, the ICC closed the inquiry, holding that the complaint was false and malicious. However, instead of recording Respondent No. 3’s name, the ICC stated that the complaint had been instigated by an “unknown source.” This was the basis of the petitioner’s challenge.
Proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal
Aggrieved, the petitioner moved the Industrial Tribunal under Section 18 POSH Act, arguing that the ICC had failed to perform its statutory duty by not recommending action against Respondent No. 3 under Section 14 despite the complainant’s clear allegation of coercion/instigation.
The petitioner also contended that the ICC intentionally avoided naming the real instigator and wrongly described the source as “unknown.”
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. It reasoned that the petitioner was not directly affected by the ICC’s findings and that no substantive inquiry had been conducted to verify the retraction. It also observed that the POSH Act is not meant to resolve inter-employee disputes or to take action against individuals who are not directly involved as complainants.
At a preliminary inquiry in January 2025, the complainant told the ICC again that she had not drafted the complaint, was unaware of its contents, and that the accused clerk had not sexually harassed or troubled her.
In a detailed retraction letter dated January 6, 2025, she named the institute’s principal as the person who prepared the complaint and coerced her into signing it in order to defame the accused clerk and damage his career.
Read Also: Supreme Court Mandates Internal Complaint Committees for Harassment Reporting
On this basis, the ICC again characterized the matter as a malicious complaint and closed the proceedings, while waiving penalties against the complainant. But it still recorded that the complainant was instigated by an “unknown source.”
The accused clerk challenged this before the Tribunal, arguing that it amounted to shielding the principal by erasing his name even though the retraction letter squarely blamed him.
Issues before the High Court
- Whether the petitioner had the right to challenge the ICC’s findings.
- Whether the ICC erred by failing to name the alleged instigator despite material on record.
Observations and reasoning of the High Court
The High Court held that the accused clerk was clearly a “person aggrieved” by the ICC’s conclusions. It also held that it was not necessary for him to show direct injury to maintain an appeal under the POSH Act.
The Court interpreted Section 18 of the POSH Act, noting that the right to appeal is available to “any person aggrieved” by the ICC’s recommendations. It expressly clarified that there is no requirement to demonstrate direct injury.
It said,
“It is not necessary for the Petitioner… to show any direct injury caused to him.”
The Court accordingly set aside the Tribunal’s order. It also modified the ICC’s conclusion by directing that the wording “unknown source” be replaced with the fact that Respondent No. 3 instigated Respondent No. 4 to file a false case against the petitioner.
However, the High Court declined to direct action against the principal under Section 14. It reasoned that Section 14 is directed at consequences connected with the complainant/person making the complaint, and it does not extend to third-party instigators who allegedly influenced the filing of a false complaint.
At the same time, the Court left it open for the accused clerk to pursue appropriate remedies against Respondent No. 3 in a competent forum, after giving the principal an opportunity of hearing.
The Court found that the ICC relied on the complainant’s retraction but inconsistently omitted the part of the retraction where the complainant identified Respondent No. 3 as the instigator.
It said,
“The ICC cannot selectively omit to name the source of instigation, when he is named in the same retraction letter.”
The Court also rejected the Tribunal’s approach that the retraction had not been independently verified as a ground to treat the appeal as not maintainable. It emphasized that the petitioner’s grievance was limited to correcting the ICC’s findings as recorded.
Also Read: “Dashboard for Govt-Level POSH Act Committees in Progress”: Centre to Supreme Court
The Court further held that the ICC’s conclusion that some “unknown source” influenced the complainant could not stand in the face of the retraction’s contents.
It said,
“The conclusion… that some ‘unknown source’ influenced the complainant cannot be sustained.”
Final Order
Using its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court:
- set aside the Industrial Tribunal’s order, and
- modified the ICC’s finding so that it reads:
“The Respondent No. 3 instigated the Respondent No. 4 to file a false sexual harassment case against the Petitioner.”
Nevertheless, it declined to grant reliefs seeking action against Respondent No. 3 under the POSH Act, leaving the petitioner free to pursue remedies in accordance with law.
Advocate Shivraj Gaonkar appeared for the accused.
Additional government pleader Rishikesh Gawas appeared for the institute.
Advocate Annelise Fernandes appeared for the instigator.
Case Title: X Vs Y