PoSH Conciliation Limits: Can Employers Take Disciplinary Action After a Settlement?

Rainmaker April 30, 2026 Prevention of Sexual Harassment 6 min read

For an Internal Committee (“IC”), few moments feel more definitive than the conclusion of a case through conciliation. The complaint is settled, the terms are recorded, and the process reaches its endpoint. But what happens when the complainant returns—distressed, and now with new material that may alter the context? The difficulty is immediate. The process has concluded, yet the concern has not. The question, then, is not just about reopening a case, but about how an organisation responds when an issue resurfaces after closure.

A recent decision of the Gauhati High Court in the Airports Authority of India & Ors. vs. Shri Praveen VS & Anr. WA NO.149 OF 2025 engages directly with this tension, raising an important procedural question for organisations and ICs handling complaints under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (the “PoSH Act”).

The Facts of The Case

The matter arose within the Airports Authority of India, where a woman officer filed a complaint of sexual harassment against her superior officer. The complaint was placed before the IC constituted under the PoSH Act.

During the course of the proceedings, the complainant opted for conciliation. A settlement was arrived at between the parties, under which they agreed not to work in close proximity with each other. The complainant also chose not to pursue a full inquiry at that stage, citing mental distress.

In view of the settlement, the IC did not conduct an inquiry into the complaint and proceeded to issue its report. In the report, the IC recorded that there was a lack of evidence. Subsequently, the complainant objected to this observation and produced a screenshot of an allegedly objectionable message sent by the respondent. She sought reconsideration of the matter.

The IC declined to reopen the proceedings, taking the position that Section 10(4) of the PoSH Act bars further inquiry once a conciliation settlement is reached.

Faced with this new material, the employer initiated departmental disciplinary proceedings under its service rules to examine the alleged misconduct. The respondent challenged the initiation of these proceedings before the High Court.

What the Single Judge Bench Held

A Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings started by the employer. The Court also directed that the IC’s remark stating that “evidence was lacking” should be removed from the report.

While not explicitly stated, the ruling effectively treated the matter as having reached absolute finality after the conciliation process, preventing any further organizational action.

The employer then challenged this order by way of an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.

The Division Bench Decision

Upon appeal, the Division Bench drew a clear distinction between the statutory limits of the IC and the administrative powers of the employer. The Court affirmed that Section 10(4) of the PoSH Act bars the IC from proceeding with an inquiry once conciliation has been concluded. However, it clarified that this restriction does not extend to the employer’s ability to act under its service rules.

In doing so, the Court underscored the employer’s continuing obligation under Section 19 of the PoSH Act to ensure a safe working environment. It described the PoSH Act as a “minimum protective statute”, one that does not curtail the employer’s broader disciplinary jurisdiction.

The Court thus held that the bar under Section 10(4) operates only in relation to the IC’s inquiry and does not preclude disciplinary proceedings initiated by the employer under applicable service rules. It further recognised that proceedings before the IC and those under service rules are distinct in nature and operate in separate domains.

Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s order insofar as it quashed the departmental proceedings and permitted those proceedings to continue.

At the same time, the Court did not interfere with the direction to remove the IC’s observation regarding the lack of evidence, noting that no inquiry on the merits had been conducted following conciliation.

SLP In the Supreme Court

The respondent (Praveen VS) has since filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, where notice was issued on January 16, 2026, along with an interim stay on the Division Bench order. The matter was recently listed on April 24, 2026, and remains pending final resolution before the Supreme Court.

What This Means for ICs — and the Practical Challenges Ahead

For ICs, this judgment is a crucial reminder: before deciding how to respond to a resurfaced complaint, they must first confirm exactly where the statutory process stands. When faced with a complainant seeking reconsideration, the IC should ask four foundational questions:

Was conciliation merely attempted, or actually concluded? If conciliation was attempted but no settlement was reached, the IC may still proceed with a full inquiry.
Was a settlement formally recorded? If yes, Section 10(4) of the PoSH Act bars the IC from investigating the complaint any further.
Has a breach of settlement been reported? If the complainant reports that the respondent violated the agreed terms, the IC regains the authority to step back in and proceed with the inquiry.
Is there new evidence? If new evidence surfaces after a successful conciliation, the IC’s doors are legally closed for the purpose of reopening that specific complaint. However, if such evidence discloses fresh allegations that fall outside the scope of the original complaint and settlement, the complainant may initiate a new complaint. In such cases, the IC is not “reopening” the earlier matter, but examining a new cause of action altogether.

Strategic Takeaways

Until the matter is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the position of the Gauhati High Court must be approached with care.

A considered reading of the PoSH Act suggests that once a matter has been conciliated and formally closed under the statutory process, it attains a degree of finality within the PoSH framework. Conciliation is not merely a pause in proceedings; it is a statutorily recognized mode of resolution, intended to bring closure to the complaint between the parties.

In this context, any subsequent action on the same set of facts raises important questions of finality, procedural consistency, and fairness. The underlying rationale of the principle of res judicata, as recognized under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, offers a useful lens: a matter that has been conclusively resolved between parties should not be re-examined in parallel or subsequent proceedings on the same cause of action.

Applying this principle by analogy, employers must carefully assess whether initiating disciplinary proceedings post-conciliation amounts to effectively re-agitating a matter that has already been settled through a statutory mechanism. In fact, if organizations were to routinely proceed with disciplinary action post-conciliation, the following practical concerns may arise:

The Loss of Specialized Safeguards: The IC is a statutory body explicitly trained to handle sensitive evidence and maintain strict confidentiality. If a sexual harassment allegation is diverted to a general departmental proceeding, it may be handled by personnel who lack training on handling sexual harassment complaints. This raises serious risks regarding procedural consistency, confidentiality and privacy breaches.
The Timeline Trap: The judgment does not address how these situations should be managed from a timeline perspective. If a complainant brings forward new evidence months or years after a conciliation settlement, organizations may find themselves expected to initiate fresh administrative action long after a matter was considered closed.
The Risk of Parallel Proceedings: If these matters are routinely diverted to general service rules, companies risk creating dual-track systems for the same issue. This could lead to actions being taken without the structured, legally tested safeguards inherent in the PoSH framework.

Closing Thought

For employers, the question is not just can we act, but should we act—and on what basis. Where conciliation has concluded, any further intervention must be grounded in a clearly separate cause of action, and not a re-examination of what has already been resolved.

Finality is not a technicality; it is a safeguard. Diluting it risks weakening both process and trust.