Tripura HC Sets Aside ICAR Sexual Harassment Inquiry, Orders Fresh Committee Senior to Accused Officer
The Tripura High Court quashed a 2019 ICAR inquiry report into a scientist's sexual harassment complaint, finding the committee was composed entirely of officers junior to the accused, and that the complainant was denied copies of witness depositions and the right to cross-examine.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Tripura, led by Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit, on 7 May 2026 allowed a writ appeal filed by Smt. Rekha Das, a Scientist at the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), and set aside the inquiry report dated 9 April 2019 of the Institute Complaint Committee as well as the appellate order dated 30 July 2021 upholding it. The court found that the committee had conducted what the respondents called a “preliminary fact-finding inquiry” — a concept the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 does not recognise — and had done so in violation of the principles of natural justice. The bench also held that constituting a committee composed entirely of officers subordinate in rank to the accused officer created a real likelihood of bias, vitiating the entire proceeding.
The Complaint and the Inquiry at ICAR Tripura Centre
Rekha Das was appointed as a Scientist in ICAR on 10 October 2014 and joined the ICAR Research Complex for North Eastern Hills (NEH) Region, Tripura Centre, Agartala on 23 February 2015. On 5 December 2018, she filed a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 against Dr. Basant Kumar Kandpal, who was then serving as Joint Director, ICAR, Tripura, alleging inappropriate conduct amounting to sexual harassment both in the office and in the field.
At the time of the complaint, there was no Internal Complaints Committee at Agartala. The matter was referred to the Institute Complaint Committee of the ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Meghalaya. That committee was constituted as follows: Dr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha (Scientist, Agricultural Extension) as Member; Ms. Nirmal Borthakur (Senior Technical Officer) as Member; Malaya Kharaior (UDC) as Member; S.R. Baruah (Administrative Officer) as Member Secretary; and Dr. Bijoy Bhattacharjee (Principal Scientist) as Chairman.
The committee submitted its report on 9 April 2019. It found lapses on the part of both the appellant and the accused officer, characterising the appellant as argumentative and arrogant and the accused as short-tempered. It gave no specific finding on the sexual harassment allegations. It concluded that both were good scientists who needed to change their behaviour.
Rekha Das was not supplied with the full depositions of the witnesses examined by the accused officer, and she was not permitted to cross-examine those witnesses.
The Prolonged Appellate and Judicial History
Rekha Das filed an appeal dated 19 July 2019 under Section 18 of the Act to the Secretary, ICAR, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi (Respondent No. 2), who was the designated Appellate Authority. She raised multiple grounds: that the accused officer, as Joint Director and reporting officer for Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) of several employees, would have coerced witnesses; that he was not transferred during the inquiry as permitted under Section 12 of the Act; that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS (CCA) Rules) as required by Section 11 of the Act; that she was not informed of her right to cross-examine witnesses; and that she was not provided copies of witness depositions.
When the appeal remained undecided, she filed W.P.(C) No. 243 of 2021 for expeditious disposal. The Single Judge dismissed it as not maintainable, directing her to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). She challenged that dismissal in Writ Appeal No. 183 of 2021, and the Division Bench of the Tripura High Court allowed the appeal on 7 September 2021, holding the writ petition maintainable and directing the appellate authority to decide her appeal within two months.
The Secretary, ICAR dismissed her appeal by order dated 30 July 2021, rejecting all contentions. A copy was forwarded to her on 27 November 2021. She then filed W.P.(C) No. 483 of 2022 challenging that order. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 20 December 2023, holding that the committee had conducted only a preliminary inquiry, that cross-examination was not required at that stage, and that she had also filed O.A. No. 85 of 2020 before the CAT, which was a bar to invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction. The present Writ Appeal No. 18 of 2024 challenges that judgment.
Whether the Writ Petition Was Maintainable
The Division Bench held that the Single Judge erred in treating the matter as one that could only be adjudicated by the CAT. The bench pointed out that this precise question had already been decided between the same parties by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 183 of 2021 on 7 September 2021, and that decision was binding on the Single Judge and on the respondents.
The earlier Division Bench had reasoned that the purpose of the Act is to provide a safe workplace and swift redress to women, and that the possible imposition of a departmental penalty on the accused is only one of several consequences of a sexual harassment complaint. Other consequences include forwarding the complaint to the police under Section 11 for registration of a case under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, granting the complainant a transfer or additional leave under Section 12, and directing recovery of compensation from the accused's salary under Section 15. Because a sexual harassment complaint has consequences well beyond service conditions, it does not fall within the definition of a “service matter” under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
The present bench agreed with that reasoning and held the writ petition maintainable. It also clarified that the OA No. 85 of 2020 pending before the CAT related to gradings in APARs for 2017-18 — a different subject matter — and its pendency was not a bar to the appellant pursuing her sexual harassment complaint in the High Court.
No Such Thing as a Preliminary Fact-Finding Inquiry Under the Act
The respondents argued that the Institute Complaint Committee's report of 9 April 2019 was only a preliminary fact-finding inquiry, and that a regular inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules would follow if a prima facie case of harassment were found. The bench rejected this entirely.
Section 11 of the Act requires the Internal Committee to proceed to make an inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the service rules applicable to the accused. Where both parties are employees, they must be given an opportunity of being heard during the inquiry, and a copy of the findings must be made available to both parties to enable them to make representations. The committee also has the powers of a civil court for summoning witnesses, requiring production of documents, and examining persons on oath.
Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, read with its proviso, makes the Complaints Committee the inquiring authority appointed by the disciplinary authority. The committee is not a mere fact-finding body; it must conduct the inquiry as far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in those rules.
The bench relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, (2024) 1 SCC 632, where a university had similarly treated its Internal Complaints Committee as a fact-finding body and then appointed a retired High Court Judge to conduct a separate inquiry under Rule 14. The Supreme Court set that aside, holding that the Complaints Committee itself is the inquiring authority and cannot act as a mere fact-finding committee while ignoring natural justice. The Tripura bench applied that reasoning directly: the Institute Complaint Committee was required to supply full depositions of witnesses to the appellant and to permit her to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the accused. It did neither.
The bench held that both the appellate authority in its order of 30 July 2021 and the Single Judge in the judgment of 20 December 2023 erred in upholding the report and the procedure followed, given the total non-compliance with Section 11 of the Act read with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and the violation of principles of natural justice.
Inquiry by Subordinates of the Accused: Real Likelihood of Bias
Rekha Das raised an additional ground by way of an affidavit dated 2 December 2025: all members of the Institute Complaint Committee that gave the report of 9 April 2019 were subordinate in rank to the accused officer, Dr. Kandpal. The respondents did not deny this in their counter-affidavit.
The bench applied the “real likelihood of bias” test consistently applied by Indian courts. It referred to Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 8 SCC 395, where the Supreme Court held that real likelihood of bias means at least a substantial possibility of bias, and that the test is whether a reasonable intelligent person, fully apprised of all circumstances, would feel a serious apprehension of bias. The plea need not have been raised during the inquiry itself; raising it before the High Court is sufficient where it is based on admitted and uncontroverted facts.
The bench also referred to Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P., (2025) 7 SCC 545, which summarised the Indian position as applying the test of real likelihood or reasonable apprehension of bias, and to Government of Tamil Nadu v. Munuswamy Mudaliar, 1988 Supp SCC 751, which defined bias as a predisposition to decide for or against one party without proper regard to the true merits of the dispute.
The bench found that, viewed from the perspective of a reasonable and fair-minded person, there was a strong likelihood that an officer accused of sexual harassment would influence committee members who were his subordinates in service. It also noted a DoPT Office Memorandum dated 7 January 1971 and a subsequent Office Memorandum dated 21 December 2022, both of which record the observation of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation that inquiries should be conducted by an officer sufficiently senior to the officer whose conduct is being inquired into, because inquiry by a junior officer cannot commend the confidence it deserves.
The bench found this principle had been violated, further vitiating the inquiry.
The Accused Was Not Transferred During the Inquiry
The bench observed that Dr. Kandpal was not transferred during the period of inquiry by the Institute Complaint Committee, even though Section 12 of the Act permits such a transfer on a request by the aggrieved woman. The two witnesses examined on behalf of Rekha Das — Dr. K.K. Barman and Dr. S.P. Das, both Principal Scientists — stated that they were not aware of the case or complaint. All witnesses examined by the accused, on the other hand, supported his denial of the allegations. The bench found this lent credence to the appellant's allegation that the accused's dominant position in the organisation, including his role in writing APARs of persons working under him, may have prevented witnesses from deposing honestly.
The appellate authority's order of 30 July 2021 did not address this specific allegation at all. The Single Judge had rejected it by observing that two persons had deposed on the appellant's behalf, without noting that those witnesses had themselves said they were unaware of the complaint.
Order
The Division Bench set aside the report dated 9 April 2019 of the Institute Complaint Committee, the appellate order dated 30 July 2021 of Respondent No. 2, and the judgment dated 20 December 2023 of the Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 483 of 2022.
The respondents (Nos. 1 to 5) were directed to constitute a fresh Internal Complaints Committee within four weeks, consisting of persons senior in rank to Dr. Kandpal (Respondent No. 7), in the manner indicated in Section 4 of the Act. The bench noted that Dr. Kandpal is currently posted at Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, while the appellant continues to work in Tripura.
The fresh committee is to conduct the inquiry in accordance with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Both parties are to be permitted to lead evidence afresh; all documents filed by each party are to be shared with the other; both parties are to be permitted to cross-examine each other's witnesses; and a reasoned order is to be passed within six months of the constitution of the committee and communicated to the appellant.
The writ appeal was allowed with no order as to costs. All pending applications were disposed of.