Original statutory wording · G.S.R. 769(E)
Official Rule Text
Except in cases where service rules exist, where the Complaints Committee arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent is malicious or the aggrieved woman or any other person making the complaint has made the complaint knowing it to be false or the aggrieved woman or any other person making the complaint has produced any forged or misleading document, it may recommend to the employer or District Officer, as the case may be, to take action in accordance with the provisions of rule 9.
Original Central Rules: G.S.R. 769(E), 9 December 2013. Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India. Source version: G.S.R. 769(E), dated 9 December 2013; Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3(i); English text, Gazette pages 4–6 (PDF pages 1–3 of the Ministry extract).
Ministry Gazette copy (PDF) · Government-hosted comparison copy (PDF)
Heading separators, line wrapping and indentation are adapted for screen reading. Source-printing anomalies are preserved and identified in separate PIH transcription notes; those notes are not part of the statutory text.
Official wording and PIH editorial explanation are separate layers. This reference provides general legal information; a particular employment relationship, complaint or inquiry may require qualified advice.
PIH editorial guidance · separate from statutory text
Plain-English Explanation
The original Rule describes alternative conclusions: an allegation is malicious; the aggrieved woman or another person making the complaint knew it to be false; or the person making the complaint produced a forged or misleading document. Those are specific statutory grounds, not synonyms for a complaint that could not be proved.
Where service rules do not exist and the stated conditions apply, Rule 10 permits the Committee to recommend action to the employer or District Officer in accordance with Rule 9. Section 14(1) addresses action against the complaint-maker and first refers to the service rules applicable to that person.
Section 14(1) contains express safeguards: mere inability to substantiate a complaint or provide adequate proof need not attract action, and malicious intent on the complainant’s part must be established after an inquiry in accordance with the prescribed procedure before action is recommended. An adverse finding is not, by itself, a finding of malicious intent.
Section 14(2) separately concerns a witness who gives false evidence or produces a forged or misleading document during the inquiry. It identifies the witness’s service rules or the prescribed manner where no such rules exist. That distinct witness provision should not be merged with Rule 10’s wording about a person making the complaint, or with Section 14(1)’s expressly stated provisos.
Practical Significance
Accurate treatment of the statutory grounds protects the integrity of the process without presenting an unproved complaint as wrongdoing or discouraging a genuine complaint.
Scope, Conditions and Safeguards
- Failure to substantiate an allegation or provide adequate proof alone must not automatically be treated as malicious intent.
- The malicious-intent inquiry safeguard in Section 14(1) must be read before recommending action against a complainant under that provision.
- A complaint-maker and a witness may engage different statutory provisions. Their respective grounds, actors and service-rule framework must be identified.
Related POSH Act Provisions
- Act Section 14 — Section 14(1): complaint-maker grounds and safeguards; Section 14(2): separate witness provision
Related Rules
Professional Guidance
For a particular matter, seek qualified professional or official guidance. Do not submit complaint details or medical information through this reference.