POSH Act applies to sexual harassment complaints by girl students against teacher: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently held that the definition of “aggrieved woman” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 Act (POSH Act) includes girl students, even as it quashed orders for suspension of a school teacher accused of sexual harassment by around 67 students [Pawan Kumar Niroula v. Union of India]..- The Court allowed a teacher accused of sexual harassment to re-join his duties;- The Court held that a committee constituted for summary trial of sexual harassment allegations against the teacher has no statutory force in view of the POSH Act;- An order of suspension cannot be extended beyond 90 days without adequate reasoning;- Definition of “aggrieved woman” under the POSH Act includes girl students..The Bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Rabindranath Samanta ruled that the committee in question was not an internal complaints committee as envisaged by the POSH Act.Counsel for the school had argued that POSH Act was not in fact applicable to the facts of the case, since the allegations were made by girl students of the school. This interpretation was outrightly rejected by the judges, who discussed the definition of “aggrieved woman” under the Act. “That being so, the provisions of the Act squarely apply to the students of the school,” the Court stated.As to the suspension order, the Court found that such a move exceeding 90 days without any justifiable ground was illegal. The committee for summary trial was thus found devoid of legal force as it did not adhere to mandatory requirements of the law.“The order of suspension against the petitioner vide order dated 16.02.2020 made by the respondent no. 4 and extended from time to time and the order dated 16.06.2020 by which the committee for summary trial was constituted are hereby quashed,” the Court ruled..The issue arose when the Principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, a government school, made a complaint to the police after he received complaints from several students that the petitioner was harassing them. Shortly after filing a police complaint, an internal committee was set up by the school to inquire into the complaints.Even though the petitioner was not informed of any disciplinary action against him, he was informed through unofficial channels that he was suspended. The order of suspension was extended multiple times over the course of one year and during this period, the petitioner was informed of the constitution of the committee that would carry out a summary trial against him..The petitioner challenged both the suspension order and the summary trial before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Tribunal found no infirmity in the proceedings and directed the petitioner to ensure cooperation with authorities. This order of the CAT was under challenge before the High Court in the instant case..It was the petitioner’s stand that the school authorities should have constituted an internal complaints committee and the summary trial had no legal force in terms of the provisions of the POSH Act. It was also contended that the suspension order was illegal as it was passed while the petitioner was in custody for 24 hours, and a government servant could only be suspended if detention exceeded 48 hours..To examine the suspension order’s legality, the Court discussed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India. The top court in that case had held that an order of suspension exceeding 90 days without justifiable grounds was illegal.“Such acts on the part of the concerned respondent authority reek of malafides,” observed the Bench in the present matter and quashed the order of suspension for being illegal ab intitio..The Court thus found the CAT order upholding the legality of the committee unsustainable. The school authorities were directed to allow the petitioner to re-join his duties within one month and pay all back-wages due within two months from his date of re-joining..Advocate Suman Banerjee appeared for the petitioner. The respondents were represented by Advocates Tapan Bhanja and Pulkesh Bajpayee..[Read Judgment]