Following the procedural guidelines laid down in a statute is a must and any deviation from such procedure is impermissible

Brief facts in Writ Petition No. 21852 of 2018 involve petitioner holding the post of inspector in M.P. police department and served as Station House Officer (SHO) at police station in Gadarwara, Narsinghpur from 27.08.2016 to 24.03.2017. Respondent no. 7, a sub-inspector, alleged sexual harassment by the petitioner at the workplace on 12.10.2016. The complaint of sexual harassment was filed on 16.03.2017, which was beyond the statutory 3-month period as prescribed under Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Internal Committee’s (IC) inquiry report dated 26.05.2017 concluded that the allegations were not established. The respondent submitted a representation, leading to a departmental authority order dated 25.12.2017, affirming that the allegations were unsubstantiated. Subsequently, the police headquarters directed another inquiry through an order dated 25.06.2018, resulting in a report dated 25.07.2018 finding the petitioner guilty.

It was argued by the petitioner that the complaint was filed after the statutory limitation period of 3 months, and no extension was recorded under the second proviso to Section 9 of the Act. Additionally, an appeal against the IC’s report must be made to a court/tribunal in service matters, not through a departmental review or a fresh inquiry. The respondents contended that the second inquiry and its findings does not suffer from procedural irregularity.

The Court quashed the second inquiry report dated 25.07.2018 and the order of the Police Headquarters dated 25.06.2018, holding both to be without legal authority and in violation of statutory provisions. An appeal against the IC’s findings must be filed before a court or tribunal as per the service rules. Departmental review or a second inquiry by the employer or police headquarters is not a substitute for the statutory appellate mechanism. The court reaffirmed the principle that statutory processes must be followed strictly. Any deviation, such as ordering a second inquiry without statutory authority, is impermissible. Aggrieved individuals must seek appellate relief in Courts or Tribunals instead of relying on ad-hoc departmental interventions.