The Bombay High Court at Goa has clarified that an Internal Complaints Committee under the POSH Act cannot obscure the identity of a known instigator behind a false sexual harassment complaint, even where the complainant retracts her allegations. The judgment reinforces procedural integrity in workplace harassment proceedings and mandates accurate attribution of culpability.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a false sexual harassment complaint filed by Respondent No. 4, a Lower Division Clerk with intellectual disability, against Petitioner Shrinivas Shinde, also a Lower Division Clerk. The complaint, dated 29.11.2024, alleged verbal abuse, aggressive behavior, and discriminatory remarks. The Petitioner denied all allegations and suspected external instigation.
Key Facts
- Respondent No. 4 is an employee of Respondent No. 2 (Panaji Government Industrial Institute) and has been diagnosed with intellectual disability.
- Respondent No. 3, Shri Dattaprasad V. Palni, is the Principal of Respondent No. 2 and was previously posted at Govt ITI, Pernem, where the Petitioner had also served.
- The complaint was submitted to the Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship (Respondent No. 1), the employer.
- An Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
- On 06.01.2025, Respondent No. 4 submitted a retraction letter explicitly naming Respondent No. 3 as the instigator, stating she was threatened with dire consequences and forced to sign a pre-prepared complaint.
- The retraction letter detailed that Respondent No. 3 showed her footage from his mobile phone depicting the Petitioner in a negative light, and used her disability to manipulate her into filing false allegations.
- The retraction letter was also sent to the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and the Presiding Officer of the ICC.
- The ICC, in its Inquiry Report dated 10.01.2025, concluded that the complaint was malicious and instigated by an "unknown source" under threat of future harassment, despite the retraction letter clearly identifying Respondent No. 3.
Procedural History
- 29.11.2024: Complaint filed by Respondent No. 4 against Petitioner.
- 02.01.2025: Petitioner filed reply denying allegations and raising suspicion of third-party instigation.
- 03.01.2025: ICC conducted preliminary inquiry; Respondent No. 4 admitted complaint was not her own and was prepared by Respondent No. 3.
- 06.01.2025: Respondent No. 4 submitted formal retraction letter naming Respondent No. 3 as instigator.
- 10.01.2025: ICC issued Inquiry Report concluding complaint was instigated by an "unknown source" and closed proceedings.
- 26.11.2025: Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court dismissed Petitioner’s appeal under Section 18 of POSH Act, holding it not maintainable.
- 15.01.2026: Writ Petition No. 15 of 2026 filed before the Bombay High Court at Goa.
- 16.04.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 20.04.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that the ICC’s failure to name Respondent No. 3 as the instigator, despite clear evidence in the retraction letter, was a material omission that prejudiced his reputation and violated his statutory right to a fair inquiry. He sought correction of the ICC’s conclusion and initiation of disciplinary action against Respondent No. 3 under Section 14 of the POSH Act.
Respondents 1 & 2: Supported the Tribunal’s view that the Petitioner was not directly aggrieved by the ICC’s conclusion and that no substantive inquiry was conducted into the retraction’s veracity, making any action against Respondent No. 3 premature.
Respondent No. 3: Contended that the POSH Act is not a forum to settle personal vendettas and that the retraction letter alone cannot be the basis for action against a third party not named as complainant.
Relief Sought
The Petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the Industrial Tribunal’s order dated 26.11.2025.
- Restoration of his appeal before the Tribunal for hearing on merits.
- Direction to Respondent No. 1 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 3 under Section 14 of the POSH Act for instigating a false complaint.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act is obligated to name a known instigator of a false complaint when the complainant’s retraction letter explicitly identifies that person, and whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in dismissing an appeal on grounds of non-maintainability when the grievance is limited to this omission.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The Petitioner’s counsel argued that the ICC’s conclusion that the instigator was an "unknown source" was factually incorrect and legally untenable, given the retraction letter’s explicit identification of Respondent No. 3. He relied on Section 18 of the POSH Act, which grants any person aggrieved by the ICC’s recommendation the right to appeal. He contended that the Petitioner’s reputation was directly harmed by the false allegation and that the ICC’s failure to name the true instigator amounted to a procedural failure warranting correction under Article 227 of the Constitution. He emphasized that the ICC’s duty is to record facts as they emerge, not to obscure them.
For the Respondent
The Respondents argued that the retraction letter was not subjected to a substantive inquiry and therefore could not be treated as conclusive evidence. They relied on the Tribunal’s view that the POSH Act is designed to protect women from sexual harassment, not to adjudicate personal disputes between employees. They contended that Section 14 of the POSH Act only permits action against the complainant or person who made the complaint, not against a third party who instigated her. They further argued that the Petitioner had no standing to challenge the ICC’s conclusion unless directly injured by it, and that the Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming that the Petitioner is unquestionably a "person aggrieved" under Section 18 of the POSH Act, as the ICC’s findings directly impacted his professional reputation and exposed him to stigma. The Court rejected the Tribunal’s narrow interpretation that only direct victims of harassment may appeal, noting that the statute protects the accused from malicious complaints as well.
"The ICC cannot selectively omit to name the source of instigation, when he is named in the same retraction letter."
The Court emphasized that the ICC’s Inquiry Report was based on a preliminary inquiry and that the retraction letter, submitted on 06.01.2025, was a material document that formed the basis of the ICC’s conclusion. By concluding that the instigator was an "unknown source," the ICC deliberately ignored the only source of information available to it - the complainant’s own statement.
The Court held that the ICC’s duty under the POSH Act is to record facts accurately, not to sanitize them. The omission of Respondent No. 3’s name was not a mere oversight but a failure to discharge its statutory obligation to report truthfully. The Court further noted that the Tribunal’s dismissal of the appeal on grounds of non-maintainability was legally flawed, as the Petitioner’s grievance was not about imposing punishment on Respondent No. 3, but about correcting a demonstrably false factual finding.
The Court then turned to the scope of Section 14 of the POSH Act, which permits action against the complainant or person who made the complaint. The Court held that Section 14 does not extend to instigators who are not the formal complainants. The statute’s language is clear: punishment may be recommended only against "the woman or the person who has made the complaint" under Section 9. Respondent No. 3, though the instigator, was not the complainant. Therefore, the Petitioner’s prayer for disciplinary action under Section 14 was legally unsustainable.
However, the Court exercised its power under Article 227 to correct the manifest error in the ICC’s conclusion. It held that the Tribunal’s failure to address this specific grievance was a jurisdictional error. The Court concluded that the only just remedy was to modify the ICC’s conclusion to reflect the truth as recorded in the retraction letter.
The Verdict
The Petition was allowed. The order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 26.11.2025 was quashed. The conclusion in the ICC’s Inquiry Report dated 10.01.2025, which stated that the complaint was instigated by an "unknown source," was modified to read: "The Respondent No. 3 instigated the Respondent No. 4 to file a false sexual harassment case against the Petitioner." The Petitioner’s prayer for disciplinary action against Respondent No. 3 under Section 14 of the POSH Act was dismissed. The Petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against Respondent No. 3 in any other competent forum.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Accurate Attribution Is Mandatory in ICC Reports
- Practitioners must ensure ICC reports reflect the exact source of instigation when identified in retraction letters or evidence.
- Omitting a known instigator’s name, even if no punishment is sought under Section 14, constitutes a procedural defect that can be corrected under Article 227.
- Employers and ICCs must treat retraction letters as binding factual submissions, not as mere procedural formalities.
Section 14 Does Not Cover Instigators
- Employers cannot initiate disciplinary action against third parties who instigate false complaints under Section 14 of the POSH Act.
- Action against instigators must be pursued under service rules, criminal law (e.g., Section 211 IPC), or civil remedies - not through the POSH Act.
- Legal advisors must advise clients that the POSH Act’s punitive mechanism is limited to the complainant or person who filed the complaint.
Appeals Under Section 18 Are Broadly Interpreted
- Any person whose reputation or employment rights are adversely affected by an ICC’s finding may file an appeal, even if not the complainant or respondent.
- Tribunals cannot dismiss appeals on technical grounds of "lack of direct injury" when the finding itself is factually erroneous and damaging.
- The right to appeal under Section 18 is not restricted to victims of harassment but extends to those falsely accused.
