Calcutta High Court
WPA/5136/2025 of TAHIRUDDIN BISWAS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 11 September 2026
AD/30/18 266312 NANDY (DO) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA/5136/2025 TAHIRUDDIN BISWAS VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Mr. M.N. Roy, Advocate Mr. Biswarup Nandy, Advocate ……for the Petitioner Ms. Soma Chakraborty, Advocate
AD/30/18
266312
NANDY
(DO)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
WPA/5136/2025
TAHIRUDDIN BISWAS
VS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Mr. M.N. Roy, Advocate
Mr. Biswarup Nandy, Advocate
……for the Petitioner
Ms. Soma Chakraborty, Advocate
Mr. Kaustav Seal, Advocate
……for the Respondent
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved that he was subjected to a proceeding under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short the POSH Act).
2. The investigation/enquiry conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) came to a finding that the only ground for which the petitioner was liable is a belligerent behaviour, resulting in a verbal altercation without any other kind of involvement.
3. The petitioner seeks a communication from the authorities only to such extent that he was not involved in any matter falling under the POSH Act, 2013. This, he claims, on account of the stigma he is suffering at his present place of posting.
4. The petitioner is also entitled to initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution, if so advised and if permissible in law.
5. Ms. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the authorities, submits that the authorities will issue a communication in terms of the enquiry report holding that the petitioner was guilty of a verbal altercation and nothing beyond that.
P a g e | 2
6. Let such communication be issued officially by the respondent no. 3 by September 30, 2026.
7. With the afore-stated directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)