What happens when harassment conciliation ends but safety concerns remain unresolved
A senior manager at Airports Authority of India faced a sexual harassment complaint that was resolved through conciliation. But a December court ruling confirmed that conciliation does not necessarily mean the matter is closed for disciplinary purposes.
The Gauhati High Court delivered a judgment on December 9, 2025, addressing a key question for employers: Can disciplinary proceedings still be pursued after a sexual harassment complaint before the Internal Complaints Committee ends in settlement?
The court's answer is yes—subject to the employer's service rules and independent disciplinary jurisdiction.
The case centered on Praveen V.S., a Joint General Manager (Commercial), and a female assistant manager who worked under his supervision at Imphal Airport. She filed a sexual harassment complaint which was placed before the Internal Complaints Committee.
During ICC proceedings, both parties opted for conciliation due to workplace disturbance and agreed not to work in proximity. The ICC conducted a curtailed inquiry because the complainant, suffering mental distress, did not press for a full inquiry. The ICC then recorded that "evidence was lacking."
After conciliation concluded, the complainant objected to this observation and produced a screenshot of an objectionable message allegedly sent by the manager. The matter was remitted to the ICC, but the Committee declined to reopen proceedings, citing Section 10(4) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) 2013, which prevents further ICC inquiry once settlement is reached.
Faced with new material but a concluded ICC process, the employer initiated independent departmental proceedings under its service rules in October 2022. The manager challenged this action and initially won. The Single Judge set aside the disciplinary proceedings, holding that Section 10(4) barred further action after conciliation.
On appeal, the division bench of the Gauhati High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, partially allowed the employer's appeal.
The division bench held that Section 10(4) bars only further inquiry by the ICC after conciliation; it does not extinguish the employer's separate disciplinary powers. The bar "does not extend to the employer's independent disciplinary jurisdiction which flows from the Service Rules."
The court relied on Section 19 of the 2013 Act, which requires employers to ensure safe workplaces. This duty "cannot be negated merely because the complainant agreed to conciliate at one stage, particularly, when the ICC declined to proceed further..." Reading Section 10(4) as a blanket bar would defeat the purpose of ensuring safe workplaces.
The court clarified that ICC proceedings do not substitute the employer's disciplinary jurisdiction unless service rules expressly provide otherwise. The 2013 Act is a minimum protective statute which does not curtail disciplinary powers except where clearly stated.
The court did uphold expunging the "lack of evidence" finding from the ICC report, noting the inquiry was curtailed and the Committee lacked sufficient material for that conclusion.
The court restored the employer's disciplinary proceedings, directing they resume with full opportunity for the manager to defend himself.
For HR teams, the ruling provides clarity: POSH conciliation does not automatically preclude separate disciplinary proceedings under service rules, especially where new material emerges. Organizations should ensure their policies clearly distinguish between ICC proceedings and independent disciplinary authority under service rules.
