E-Paper
Top fisheries dept official moves HC against POSH probe, withdrawal of promotion
The bench directed the respondents to file their written statements at least three days prior to the next date of hearing. The matter has now been listed for hearing in the first week of March. No interim relief was granted by the court.
The joint director of the fisheries department, Haryana, has approached the Punjab and Haryana high court challenging the proceedings initiated against him under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), along with the consequential punitive action withdrawing his promotion.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil, in an order passed on February 6, granted liberty to the petitioner, Shripal, to separately challenge the withdrawal of the promotion order by filing an independent writ petition. Meanwhile, notice was issued to the respondents and was accepted on their behalf, following which a short adjournment was sought to enable them to file their written statements.
The bench directed the respondents to file their written statements at least three days prior to the next date of hearing. The matter has now been listed for hearing in the first week of March. No interim relief was granted by the court.
In the petition, it has been alleged that the proceedings suffer from lack of jurisdiction, violation of mandatory statutory procedure, structural bias, denial of principles of natural justice, breach of Article 311 of the Constitution, and colourable exercise of power.
The petitioner was promoted and appointed as director of fisheries, Haryana, in 2024. He was also the appointing and disciplinary authority for Group ‘C’ employees, thereby falling within the definition of “employer” under Section 2(g) of the POSH Act.
In January 2026, the petitioner was informed that two complaints under the POSH Act had been received and was directed to appear before the internal complaints committee (ICC). However, no copies of the complaints were supplied, the identities of the complainants were withheld, and even the dates and contents of the allegations were not disclosed, allegedly in violation of Rule 7(2) of the POSH Rules, 2013.
Despite appearing before the ICC, the petitioner was denied access to the complaints and material allegations, compelling him to participate in the proceedings without knowledge of the case against him. It was contended that the inquiry was thus rendered illusory and vitiated from its inception.
The petitioner immediately objected to the jurisdiction and composition of the ICC, asserting that since the complaints were against the employer himself, the inquiry could only be conducted by the local committee under Section 6(1) of the POSH Act. The ICC, however, rejected the objection through a brief and non-speaking order.
It was further contended that all members of the ICC, except the external advocate, were subordinate to the petitioner, who functioned as their appointing, reporting or appellate authority. An inquiry by subordinates against their superior, the petitioner argued, is contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence and violates the doctrine of nemo judex in causa sua.
In the first week of February, the petitioner learnt that an order passed in late January had withdrawn his promotion. The withdrawal was allegedly effected without issuance of any charge-sheet, departmental inquiry or opportunity of hearing.
The petitioner has sought issuance of writs of prohibition restraining the continuation of the ICC proceedings, certiorari quashing the impugned orders, and mandamus directing that any inquiry, if required, be conducted only by the competent local committee in accordance with law.
The respondents in the case include the State of Haryana through its chief secretary, the additional chief secretary of the concerned department, the internal complaints committee, the district officer (Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace), Panchkula, and the joint director of the department.
