The Karnataka High Court recently stayed its 2021 order wherein it had held that in cases of sexual harassment at the workplace, an employer must follow service rules to impose major penalties such as dismissal. [Mangalore University v. Dr Arabi U and Anr]..A Division Bench of Justices Alok Aradhe and S Vishwajit Shetty stayed an order which had been passed by Justice M Nagaprasanna on July 20, 2021..It was argued by the appellant that one more disciplinary inquiry is not necessary to be held as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India. In view of this submission, the High Court stayed the order in the case of Dr. Arabi U v. Registrar, Mangalore University..In that case, the Court held that when there is a complaint of sexual harassment at a workplace, the employer has to follow service rules, if they are in place, to impose major penalties. The Court had noted that the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) formed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (POSH Act) can serve as a fact-finding report, but cannot be the sole basis for dismissal. .Justice M Nagaprasanna had opined: "...where the Service Rules exist, the report of the Committee becomes a fact finding report or a preliminary report, with regard to the allegation of sexual harassment and the employer becomes duty bound to proceed under the Service Rules before imposing any major penalty.".[Sexual harassment at workplace]\nServices Rules, if in place, should be followed for dismissal; ICC report not sufficient: Karnataka High Court .The judgment on which the stay had been placed was delivered on a petition filed by Arabi U, a 60-year-old professor in the Department of Economics, Mangalore University, against whom sexual harassment allegations had been made. A student had lodged a complaint with the State and National Commission for Women against him when he was functioning as Chairman of the Department of Economics in April 2018.The University placed the complaint for enquiry before its ICC, which found him guilty of the sexual harassment allegations. The University then issued a show-cause notice to him, as to why he should not be dismissed from service. .Senior Counsel Aruna Shyam represented the appellant in the present case, and Advocate Revathy Adinath Narade represented the respondent.