1
CGHC010159462022 2026:CGHC:39568
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2224 of 2022
Jageshwari Thakur W/o Mr. Niraj Krishan, Aged About 38 Years R/o HIG-610, Block-D, Kanchan Aswa Parisar, DDU Nagar, PS - D.D. Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s) versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary - General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chairman, Chhattisgarh Textbool Corporation, Block - B, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, Block - B, Sector - 24, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Sr. Finance Manager, Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, Block - B, Sector - 24, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Swati Sharma Chairman, VISHAKHA Committee, Chhattisgarh
2
Textbook Corporation, Block - B, Sector - 24, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Arvind Kumar Pandey, General Manager, Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, Block - B, Sector - 24, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate For Respective
Respondents
: Mr. Arijit Tiwari, Advocate, Mr. Anway Tiwari, Panel Lawyer and Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate
SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board
09/09/2026
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 2.3.2022, whereby, respondent No.4 constituted an an Internal Complaints Committee in pursuance of the complaint made by the petitioner, in direct violation of the mandatory statutory provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short "the Act of 2013").
2. The facts relevant for disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is currently serving as a Steno-Typist under the Respondent Corporation, having been initially appointed in the year 2008. While the petitioner was posted in the Establishment
3
Branch of the Respondent-Corporation, the newly appointed General Manager (respondent No. 6) frequently summoned the petitioner to his office under the pretext of official work. However, perceiving the improper motives and bad intentions of respondent No. 6, the petitioner consciously attempted to avoid entering his chamber. Owing to her official duties requiring her to brief respondent No. 6 and take dictations, the petitioner was unable to completely cease visiting his chamber. Taking undue advantage of the petitioner's official position and helplessness, respondent No. 6 subjected her to continuous workplace harassment, making inappropriate advances, indecent gestures, and unwelcome proposals. After enduring continuous harassment at the hands of respondent No. 6, the petitioner gathered the courage to submit a formal written complaint detailing the entire sequence of incidents, harassment and workplace intimidation before various competent authorities. Pursuant to the complaint submitted by the petitioner, respondent No. 4 issued the impugned amended order dated 02.03.2022, constituting a five-member Internal Complaints Committee. The Internal Complaints Committee so constituted directed the petitioner to appear on 22.03.2022. However, observing the flawed constitution of the Committee, comprising employees subordinate in rank to respondent No.6 and apprehending severe bias, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation stating that no fair or impartial inquiry could be conducted unless respondent No. 6 is transferred to any other
4
place. Without dealing with or deciding upon the apprehensions raised by the petitioner, the Chairperson of the Internal Complaints Committee issued an order dated 19.04.2022 directing the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 21.04.2022. Despite various notices issued requiring her appearance, the petitioner remains unable to participate in a fair proceeding, as the committee lacks officers' senior to respondent No. 6. Furthermore, respondent No. 6 has been continuously pressurizing and coercing the petitioner to retract her complaint and alter her statement. Consequently, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 28.04.2022, requesting the transfer of respondent No. 6 and the reconstitution of the committee with senior members. Feeling aggrieved by the arbitrary and illegal process adopted by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs :
10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 (Annexure P/1).
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Corporation to constitute committee strictly in consonance with Section 4 of the Act 2013 by inducting senior members of the Corporation as its members.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated
5
21.03.2022.
10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may be passed.
4. Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee, as reflected in the amended order dated 2.3.2022, is not in accordance with law. She submits that the Internal Committee ought to consists of members as prescribed under the Act of 2013. However, the mandatory provision of Section 4(2)(a) of the Act of 2013, has not been complied with. She submits that the constitution of the Committee itself being contrary to law, any inquiry conducted by such an improperly constituted body cannot substitute an inquiry by a lawfully constituted Committee. Hence, any report submitted or inquiry conducted by it is a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be taken into consideration.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Arijit Tiwari, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation submits that on account of non-availability of female employees within the Corporation, the available staff members were nominated to the Committee. However, he would not dispute that Section 4(2)(a) of the Act of 2013 provides for nomination of members from other offices or administrative units as well. He further submits that since the Internal Complaints Committee constituted by the Corporation has already concluded its inquiry and submitted its report, no occasion arises for constitution of a fresh Committee at this stage. Hence, this
6
Petition has been rendered infructuous.
6. Mr. Anway Tiwari, learned counsel for the State submits that though the Committee was not constituted in accordance with law, but the inquiry has been concluded and a report has been submitted. Therefore, the present petition has rendered infructuous.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.
8. The Act of 2013 was enacted to provide protection to women against sexual harassment at the workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Preamble of the Act of 2013 reads as under :
An Act to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
WHEREAS sexual harassment results in
violation of the fundamental rights of a woman to equality under articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and her right to life and to live with dignity under article 21 of the Constitution and right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business which includes a right to a safe environment free from sexual harassment; AND WHEREAS the protection against sexual harassment and the right to work with dignity are universally recognised human rights by international conventions and instruments such as Convention on
7
the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, which has been ratified on the 25th June, 1993 by the Government of India;
AND WHEREAS it is expedient to make provisions for giving effect to the said Convention for protection of women against sexual harassment at workplace.
9. Evidently, the amended order dated 2.3.2022, shows that the concerned authorities failed to adhere to the statutory mandate governing the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee under Section 4 of the Act of 2013.
10. Section 4 of the Act of 2013 reads as under :
4. Constitution of Internal Complaints Committee - (1) Every employer of a workplace shall, by an order in writing, constitute a Committee to be known as the
"Internal Complaints Committee":
Provided that where the offices or administrative units of the workplace are located at different places or divisional or sub- divisional level, the Internal Committee shall be constituted at all administrative units or offices.
(2) The Internal Committee shall consist of the following members to be nominated by the employer, namely:-
(a) a Presiding Officer who shall be a woman employed at a senior level at workplace from amongst the employees:
Provided that in case a senior level woman employee is not available, the
8
Presiding Officer shall be nominated from other offices or administrative units of the workplace referred to in sub-section (1):
Provided further that in case the other offices or administrative units of the workplace do not have a senior level woman employee, the Presiding Officer shall be nominated from any other workplace of the same employer or other department or organisation;
(b) not less than two Members from amongst employees preferably committed to the cause of women or who have had experience in social work or have legal knowledge;
(c) one member from amongst non- governmental organisations or associations committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment:
Provided that at least one-half of the total Members so nominated shall be women.
(3) The Presiding Officer and every Member of the Internal Committee shall hold office for such period, not exceeding three years, from the date of their nomination as may be specified by the employer.
(4) The Member appointed from amongst the non-governmental organisations or associations shall be paid such fees or allowances for holding the proceedings of the Internal Committee, by the employer, as may be prescribed.
(5) Where the Presiding Officer or any Member of the Internal Committee,—
(a) contravenes the provisions of section 16; or
(b) has been convicted for an offence or an
9
inquiry into an offence under any law for the time being in force is pending against him; or
(c) he has been found guilty in any disciplinary proceedings or a disciplinary proceeding is pending against him; or
(d) has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest,
such Presiding Officer or Member, as the case may be, shall be removed from the Committee and the vacancy so created or any casual vacancy shall be filled by fresh nomination in accordance with the provisions of this section.
11. In the matter of Aureliano Fernandes Vs. State of Goa and others reported in (2024) 1 SCC 632, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the following in para 83 :
83. Just as we celebrate a decade of the PoSH Act being legislated, it is time to look back and take stock of the manner in which the mandate of the Act has been given effect to. The working of the Act is centred on the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) by every employer at the workplace and constitution of Local Committees (LCs) and the Internal Committees (ICs) by the appropriate Government, as contemplated in Chapters II and III, respectively, of the PoSH Act. An improperly constituted ICC/LC/IC, would be an impediment in conducting an inquiry into a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace, as envisaged under the Statute and the Rules. It will be equally counterproductive to have an ill prepared Committee conduct a half-baked inquiry that can lead to serious consequences, namely, imposition of major
10
penalties on the delinquent employee, to the point of termination of service.
12. In the matter of Prof. Rasal Singh Vs. University of Delhi, Through its Vice Chancellor and Others, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1905, the following was held in 36, 44 and 45 :
36. The ad hoc Fact Finding Committee was tasked with inquiring into a complaint of sexual harassment, a matter which, by its very nature, is judicial or at the very least quasi judicial exercise, inasmuch as it involves determination of facts, appreciation of evidence, and conclusions that have direct and serious consequences for the Petitioner. Such an exercise to be valid in the eyes of law, must necessarily satisfy both the anchors of natural justice. The said committee, constituted without any governing rules or statutory mandate, operated without any assurance of impartiality expected by the rule of nemo judex in causa sua and offered no structured, rule-governed opportunity of hearing as mandated by the rule of audi alterem partem. The constitution of a parallel, extra-statutory committee in substitution of or prior to the ICC, therefore, offends not merely the express provisions of PoSH Act but also the foundational principles of natural justice
44. Per contra, the very constitution of an ad hoc committee to inquire into the factum of sexual harassment, whether the same has occurred, or whether the underlying facts amount to sexual harassment, are questions which are to be answered by the ICC/Local Committee. The said committees owe their very existence to answering such questions.
11
The constitution of such an ad hoc committee would in fact be in express derogation of the object and purpose of the PoSH Act, and also frustrate the intention of the legislature.
45. The reliance placed by Mr Mehta on the decisions in Nirmala, J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat (supra) and Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India (supra) arose in the context of general service jurisprudence, where a preliminary fact verification before initiation of disciplinary proceedings may be permissible. However, complaints of sexual harassment stand on a distinct footing. The PoSH Act specifically creates a self-contained mechanism for redressal of such complaints through the Internal Complaints Committee/Local Committee. Once the legislature has expressly designated the ICC/Local Committee as the authority which shall inquire into such complaints, the constitution of any parallel or pre-ICC fact-finding body would be outside the statutory scheme.
13. Furthermore, in the matter of Independent Sugar Corporation Limited Vs. Girish Sriram Juneja and others, reported in (2025)
5 SCC 209, the following was held in para 52, :
52. In the present interpretive exercise, one also needs to be mindful of the legal principle which says that where a statute requires one to do a certain thing in a certain manner, it must be done in that particular manner or not done at all. For this proposition, it would be relevant to extract the following from the judgment in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak [A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, (1984) 2
12
SCC 500 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 277] : (SCC p. 523, para
22)
"22. … it is unnecessary to refer to the long line of decisions commencing from Taylor v. Taylor [Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426] ; Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41 : AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) : (1935-36) 63 IA 372] and ending with Chettiam Veettil Ammad v. Taluk Land Board [Chettiam Veettil Ammad v. Taluk Land Board, (1980) 1 SCC 499] , laying down hitherto uncontroverted legal principle that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden."
14. Coming to the facts of the present case, from a perusal of the amended order dated 2.3.2022, it is manifest that the Internal Committee was not constituted in conformity with the provisions prescribed under the Act of 2013. The Act of 2013 expressly provides that the employer shall nominate the members of the Internal Complaints Committee, including the appointment of a senior-level woman employee from other offices or administrative units where necessary. Since the Internal Committee was not constituted in accordance with law, the inquiry conducted by it and the report submitted pursuant thereto are not in accordance with law. If the primary constitution of a Committee is defective, any inquiry conducted by it is devoid of jurisdiction and cannot be
13
taken into consideration, as the same is non est in the eyes of law. Consequently, the entire inquiry stands vitiated on the sole ground of the improper constitution of the Committee.
15. For the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed. The inquiry conducted by the subject Committee, along with the report submitted pursuant thereto, is hereby set-aside. The concerned authorities are directed to forthwith constitute a fresh Internal Complaints Committee in accordance with Section 4(2) of the Act of 2013 and to direct the newly constituted Committee to conduct an inquiry into the matter afresh.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Shyna Ajay