Employer’s Disciplinary Powers Survive POSH Conciliation: Gauhati High Court Clarifies Scope of Section 10(4)

Airports Authority of India & Ors. v. Praveen VS, WA No. 149 of 2025 (Gauhati High Court)
Decision Date: 9 December 2025

Background

The Gauhati High Court, in an important intra-court appeal, has clarified the scope of Section 10(4) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”), particularly on whether POSH conciliation before an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) bars an employer from initiating independent departmental disciplinary proceedings. The case arose from a sexual harassment complaint filed by a woman officer against her superior within the Airports Authority of India (AAI). During ICC proceedings, the parties opted for conciliation to avoid workplace disturbance. While conciliation succeeded, the ICC conducted only a curtailed inquiry and observed that “evidence was lacking.” Subsequently, the complainant objected to this observation and produced additional material. Although the ICC declined to reopen the matter citing Section 10(4), the employer initiated departmental proceedings under service rules. The Single Judge quashed the departmental inquiry and expunged the ICC’s “lack of evidence” finding. This decision was challenged by the employer in an intra-court appeal.

Key Issues Before the Court

• Does Section 10(4) of the POSH Act prohibit an employer from initiating disciplinary proceedings after conciliation?
• Do ICC proceedings substitute or override disciplinary jurisdiction under service rules?
• Was the quashing of departmental proceedings legally justified?

Decision of the Court

The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court partly allowed the appeal and held:

• Section 10(4) bars only further inquiry by the ICC or Local Committee, not disciplinary proceedings by the employer.
• The employer’s power to initiate departmental action flows independently from service rules and remains intact.
• The POSH Act is a minimum protective statute and does not extinguish disciplinary jurisdiction unless expressly stated.
• Interpreting Section 10(4) as a blanket bar would defeat the objective of ensuring safe workplaces, as mandated under Section 19 of the POSH Act.
• The departmental proceedings against the charged officer were therefore held to be lawful and maintainable.

However, the Court upheld the expunging of the ICC’s observation that “evidence was lacking,” noting that the inquiry was never fully concluded due to conciliation and the complainant’s mental distress. The departmental inquiry was directed to resume strictly in accordance with service rules, ensuring full opportunity of defence, and without being influenced by any judicial observations.

Key Takeaways

• Conciliation under the POSH Act does not grant immunity from disciplinary action.
• ICC proceedings do not replace or override an employer’s disciplinary jurisdiction unless service rules expressly provide so.
• Employers retain a continuing obligation to ensure workplace safety, even after conciliation.
• Findings recorded in a curtailed or incomplete ICC inquiry should be treated with caution.
• The judgment strikes a balance between protecting the dignity of the complainant and ensuring procedural fairness to the accused.

Why This Judgment Matters

This ruling provides crucial clarity for employers, compliance officers, and legal practitioners dealing with POSH-related disputes. It prevents misuse of conciliation as a shield against accountability and reinforces that workplace safety obligations extend beyond ICC proceedings. At the same time, it safeguards against premature or conclusive findings where inquiries remain incomplete.

Conclusion

The Gauhati High Court’s decision in Airports Authority of India v. Praveen VS is a significant contribution to POSH jurisprudence, reaffirming that statutory protections and service law mechanisms must operate in harmony rather than in exclusion. The judgment strengthens institutional responsibility while preserving fairness and due process.