Synopsis

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor dismissed from service on the basis of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report finding allegations of sexual harassment proved, challenged the ICC report and the dismissal order directly before the High Court under Article 226. The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition on merits, holding that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the PoSH Act, 2013. The court observed that the mere apprehension that the appellate authority (the University itself) might not be impartial did not render the remedy inefficacious. The petition was disposed of with liberty to file an appeal, leaving all rights and contentions open.

Court: High Court of Delhi
Coram: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Date: March 30, 2026
Citation: Not explicitly provided in the text
Core Law: Service Law, Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – Section 18 (Appeal); Alternative Remedy; Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Legal Framework

• Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act): Section 18 – provides for an appeal against recommendations of the ICC or the non‑implementation thereof, to the court or tribunal in accordance with service rules applicable to the person aggrieved.

• Constitution of India: Article 226 – writ jurisdiction; principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies.

• Relevant Precedents:
  Vineet Saraf v. Rural Electrification Corpn. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) – writ courts should not routinely grant relief that can be s

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.