Bombay High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Medical Officer in Sexual Harassment Case Due to Procedural Violations and Bias. ICC Inquiry Report and Charge Memorandum Set Aside for Non-Compliance with Section 11 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 and Natural Justice.

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Memorandum of Charges, Notice, and Inquiry Report issued in disciplinary proceedings arising from a sexual harassment complaint.

Petitioner sought quashing of the Memorandum of Charges dated 14 December 2024, the Notice dated 31 July 2025, and the Inquiry Report dated 14 July 2025 of the Internal Complaints Committee.

Petitioner alleged that the ICC inquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, with bias, and without providing opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, rendering the proceedings invalid.

The ICC submitted its final recommendations on 3 December 2024, and the employer issued a charge memorandum on 14 December 2024. The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging these actions.

Whether the ICC inquiry was vitiated due to denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses? Whether the Presiding Officer of the ICC was biased due to her relationship with the complainant's father? Whether the unexplained delay in filing the complaint affects the credibility of the allegations? Whether the disciplinary proceedings based on the ICC report are sustainable?

Petitioner argued that the ICC did not allow cross-examination of the aggrieved woman and other witnesses, violating Section 11 of the Act and principles of natural justice. Petitioner contended that the Presiding Officer, Dr. Sugnya Sachin Patil, was a colleague of the complainant's father, creating a reasonable apprehension of bias. Petitioner pointed out that the complaint was filed 15 days after the alleged incident without any explanation, which is a significant delay. Respondents argued that the inquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with the NPCIL (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1996, and that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself.

The ICC must strictly comply with Section 11 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, which mandates providing an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Failure to do so, along with bias of the Presiding Officer and unexplained delay in filing the complaint, vitiates the inquiry and the consequent disciplinary proceedings.

The ICC did not provide an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the aggrieved woman or any other witness, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 11 of the Act. The Presiding Officer of the ICC was a colleague of the complainant's father, which creates a reasonable apprehension of bias. The complaint was filed after a delay of 15 days without any explanation, which is a relevant factor in assessing the credibility of the allegations.

On 27 July 2024, a complaint was filed by Mr. D. Ghosh on behalf of his daughter alleging sexual harassment by the petitioner. On 29 July 2024, the employer constituted the ICC. The ICC submitted a preliminary report on 4 October 2024 and final recommendations on 3 December 2024. On 14 December 2024, the employer issued a Memorandum of Charges. On 14 July 2025, the ICC submitted its inquiry report. On 31 July 2025, the employer issued a notice. The petitioner filed the writ petition on an unspecified date, which was heard and decided on 14 October 2025.

• Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013: Section 11, Section 13, Section 19, Section 26
• Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
• NPCIL (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1996: