Madhya Prasdesh HC sets aside Rs 35 lakh compensation in POSH case over pending appeal

NEW DELHI: The Madhya Pradesh high court has set aside a single judge's order that asked a former vice-chancellor of the Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education (LNIPE) to pay Rs 35 lakh to a woman employee who had accused him of sexual harassment.

The court said compensation could not be decided while his appeal against the inquiry findings was still pending.What was the dispute aboutThe complainant, working as a Yoga Instructor at LNIPE, filed a complaint on October 14, 2019, over an incident from March 2019, under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. The Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) probed the matter and gave its report on September 21, 2020.

The report contained findings against the vice-chancellor but did not recommend any penal action.The VC then filed an appeal against these findings under Section 18 of the POSH Act and the UGC's 2015 sexual harassment regulations. The appeal is still pending.The complainant separately moved the high court seeking compensation. A single judge allowed her plea on July 15, 2025, and directed VC to pay her Rs 35 lakh.

The order also imposed Rs 5 lakh on state officials for delaying the criminal investigation and Rs 1 lakh on LNIPE for what it called a "casual attitude" towards the case. The VC then challenged this order in the present appeal.At the hearing, the complainant's counsel argued that the VC had never mentioned this pending appeal in his earlier reply before the single judge, and disputed that any appeal had been filed at all.The counsel from VC's side countered by producing an email sent on October 20, 2020, along with its acknowledgment, to show the appeal had in fact been submitted.Counsel further told the court that any comments made now, while his departmental appeal is still pending, would unfairly harm his case. He further argued that if the single judge's order was allowed to stand, it would amount to assuming the appellant was guilty before the appeal had even been heard.What the court saidThe division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Ashish Shroti observed that the departmental authority should get the chance to hear both sides and decide the appeal first, before anything else is decided."After considering the rival submissions and looking to the tenure and texture of the dispute, it is apposite that first departmental authority should apply its mind in appeal where contentions raised by the appellant as well as reply, if any preferred by the respondents (specially respondent No.1) be met and reasonable/logical decision be taken.

This way factual matrix of the case and the issues raised by the appellant as well as respondent No.

1 during the course of arguments would be examined threadbare, as the right of appeal is a substantive right which is required to be given to the authority concerned, so that on facts clarity may come to the fore," the bench noted.Based on this, the bench cancelled the single judge's order and sent the case back to the departmental appellate authority."Resultantly impugned order dated 15.07.2025 in W.P. No. 5625/20 is hereby set aside and matter is remanded back to the appellate authority which according to counsel for appellant and LNIPE is Secretary, Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs, Government of India," the court said.The court did not comment on whether the harassment allegations were true or false. It simply told the appellate authority to give both sides a fair hearing and decide the appeal quickly. The parties have been asked to appear before the appellate authority on July 14, 2026.