Procedural fairness is non-negotiable – Kerala High Court sets aside ICC report for non-service of complaint copy on delinquent

In a significant ruling reinforcing the importance of due process in workplace misconduct investigations, the Kerala High Court, in X v. Kerala Social Security Mission[1]  on 17 March 2026, has set aside an Internal Complaints Committee (“ICC”) report due to fundamental procedural lapses. The Court, presided over by Hon’ble Justice M.B. Snehalatha, held that the failure to provide a delinquent employee with a copy of the complaint and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses constitutes a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

The case arose after Petitioner one was terminated and Petitioner two faced adverse consequences following an inquiry by the ICC of the Government Medical College. The petitioners challenged these actions, contending that the enquiry was conducted in secrecy. They alleged that they were never served a copy of the complaint or the final report, and were only able to obtain the complaint through a Right to Information (“RTI”) request after the termination order had already been issued. Furthermore, they argued they were denied the right to cross-examine the complainant and were not permitted to present their own witnesses.

The Court’s analysis centered on the mandatory nature of Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (of Women at Workplace) Act, 2013 (“Act”) and Rule 7 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Rules, 2013 (“Rule”) The Bench observed that for State employees, an ICC inquiry must mirror a formal disciplinary enquiry and remain consistent with the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard). The Court found that merely “showing” the complaint to the accused during a hearing, as admitted by the respondents, did not satisfy the legal requirement of “serving” the documents.

The ruling emphasizes that technical compliance with the POSH Act cannot be used to bypass constitutional safeguards. By directing a fresh enquiry to be completed within two months, the Kerala High Court has clarified that serving the complaint and relevant documents is a statutory mandate under Rule 7, not a discretionary administrative act. Furthermore, a delinquent employee must be given a fair chance to contest the evidence against them to ensure the inquiry is not a mere formality. High Courts can intervene under Article 226 if a statutory body fails to follow the basic tenets of natural justice, regardless of alternative remedy arguments. This judgment serves as a stern reminder to employers and ICC members that the pursuit of workplace safety must be balanced with the accused’s right to a fair and transparent defence.

[1] (2026 SCC OnLine Ker 3915)