POSH limitation and flawed ICC process, plus false SVLDRS disclosure, required fresh inquiry and permitted tax adjudication.

A sexual harassment complaint alleging continuing acts was treated as a recurring grievance, so a rigid limitation objection under the POSH Act did not defeat it at the threshold and the matter could proceed on merits. The Internal Complaints Committee process was found procedurally unsafe because of concerns over constitution and haste, so the earlier report was to be ignored and a fresh committee was directed to conduct a de novo inquiry under the POSH Act and service rules. In the tax dispute, a settlement declaration under SVLDRS filed in the wrong category was treated as a false material disclosure, rendering the declaration ineffective and allowing the Department to proceed with adjudication of the show cause notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the sexual harassment complaint was barred by limitation under the POSH Act; (ii) whether the constitution and conduct of the Internal Complaints Committee vitiated the inquiry and whether the earlier report had to be eschewed; and (iii) whether the SVLDRS declaration filed in relation to the tax dispute was vitiated by a false disclosure in the category selected, warranting consequences under the Scheme.

Issue (i): whether the sexual harassment complaint was barred by limitation under the POSH Act.

Analysis: The complaint was not confined to isolated incidents in 2020, but alleged a series of continuing acts extending into 2021 and 2022, including repeated calls, messages, workplace interactions, and disparaging conduct. On that pleading, the complaint was treated as one founded on recurring incidents, and not as a stale complaint referable only to a single last-dated event. The statutory period under the POSH Act was therefore not applied rigidly to defeat the complaint at the threshold.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and the complaint was held to be maintainable for inquiry on merits.

Issue (ii): whether the constitution and conduct of the Internal Complaints Committee vitiated the inquiry and whether the earlier report had to be eschewed.

Analysis: The Committee as initially constituted included members whose participation created a legitimate apprehension of impropriety, and the inquiry was conducted with undue haste. The report had been completed before the writ proceedings were finally disposed of, but that fact had not been placed before the writ court. The Court held that the procedure under the POSH Act and the CCS (CCA) Rules must be read together, with the Committee first performing a fact-finding function and then, if required, functioning as the inquiring authority under the service rules. To ensure fairness, the earlier committee and its report could not be retained, and a fresh committee had to proceed afresh.

Conclusion: The earlier ICC report was directed to be ignored, the complaint was restored for fresh consideration, and a de novo committee was directed to conduct the inquiry in accordance with law.

Issue (iii): whether the SVLDRS declaration filed in relation to the tax dispute was vitiated by a false disclosure in the category selected, warranting consequences under the Scheme.

Analysis: The declaration was filed under the wrong category, despite an ongoing investigation and the absence of eligibility for voluntary disclosure. The wrong selection was treated as a material falsehood because the category chosen controlled the very applicability of the Scheme. On that basis, the declaration was held to attract the statutory consequence that a false material particular renders the declaration as if it had never been made. The Department was therefore entitled to proceed on the show cause notice in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The SVLDRS declaration was held to be vitiated and the Department was permitted to proceed with adjudication of the show cause notice.

Final Conclusion: The complaint of sexual harassment was permitted to proceed only through a fresh and properly constituted inquiry, the earlier committee action was set aside, and the tax-related declaration was held ineffective because of a false material disclosure. The matters were disposed of with directions preserving the appellant's procedural safeguards and maintaining the service status quo until completion of the refreshed process.

Ratio Decidendi: A sexual harassment complaint alleging continuing acts is not defeated by a rigid limitation objection at the threshold, and where the initial committee is tainted or its procedure is procedurally unsafe, the inquiry must be restarted de novo; likewise, a false material disclosure in a statutory settlement declaration nullifies the declaration and permits the Department to proceed under the underlying tax law.

---