The Single Bench of Justice Javaid Iqbal Wani while deciding a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the maintainability of a complaint before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was under challenge, quashed the proceedings against the Petitioner as being time-barred and thus, invalid. 

The case at hand related to a case where the Private Respondent, Tax Assistant in the Income Tax Department while working under the general superintendence of the Petitioner, Office Superintendent in the same Department, filed a complaint before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, J&K levelling allegationsagainst the Petitioner broadly relating to harassment by the Petitioner. The said complaint came to be taken cognizance by the Respondent Department, however, the Private Respondent could not adduce any proof in order to substantiate her allegations against the Petitioner, and thus, subsequently withdrew the said complaint. 

Thereafter, the Private Respondent filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar against the petitioner and leveled similar allegations therein the said complaint as those before the official respondents, consequent to which FIR 47/ 2017 came to be registered against the petitioner for commission of offences under Section 354 RPC. However, upon facing trial in the said case, the Petitioner came to be acquitted. However, after his acquittal, the Petitioner received a copy of yet another complaint dated 16th of October 2017 filed by private respondent against the petitioner before the ICC again qua an alleged incident dated 25th of April 2016. The said complaint culminated into recommendation of imposing a fine of Rs. One Lakh upon the Petitioner besides initiation of an action for misconduct against him. 

The Petitioner maintained the petition before the Court on the ground that the entire proceedings before the ICC are non-est, without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice and the procedure established by law and raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Complaint while relying on Section 9 (1) Proviso (2) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013). 

The Court before addressing the dispute on merits went on to decide the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the complaint beyond a period of one year under the Act of 2013, and while reproducing Section 9 of the Act observed that the record indisputably revealed that the complaint before ICC on came to be preferred on 16th of October 2017 in respect of the alleged incident dated 25th of April 2016, that is, much beyond the period prescribed for filing such complaint under Section 9 of the Act of 2013. 

The Court, further, referring to the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Kerala, in case titled as “K. Reeja Parambath Naaluthara Vs. Pradeep T. C. and Ors”. reported in 2017 SCC Online Ker 10625 observed, “the authority under the Act of 2013, had no power to act upon a complaint and pass orders thereon filed before it, beyond the condonable period of limitation of 3 months provided under proviso 2 of Section 9(1)”.

Thus, the Court held the preliminary objection raised by the Petitioner as legally sustainable, thus, rendering the impugned compliant filed by the Private Respondent, taken cognizance of by the ICC, and the recommendation made therein illegal and invalid and reiterated the settled position of law that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, that thing has to be done in that manner alone.

The Court, therefore, quashed the Complaint filed by the Private Respondent as well as the recommendations made by the ICC thereon.