Can a PoSH Inquiry Continue After the Respondent Resigns?

A resignation letter reaches HR while a sexual harassment complaint is pending. The immediate question is whether the Internal Committee should continue its work or close the file.

Do not treat the exit paperwork as the answer. The responsible approach is to examine the authority for continuing the inquiry, the respondent’s employment status and the remedies still available. Those are related questions, but they need separate answers.

The PoSH Act expressly anticipates cessation of employment in its compensation provision. That is a reason to reject an assumption that departure makes every statutory consequence disappear, not a complete answer to jurisdiction in every case.[1]

This guide sets out recommended checks for HR and IC members. It does not give a universal instruction to continue, terminate, refuse a resignation or withhold an employee’s dues.

Establish what has happened, and when

Prepare a short chronology before discussing closure. Include the alleged incident dates, complaint receipt, commencement of the inquiry, resignation submission, any acceptance and the stated effective exit date. Identify the documents supporting each entry.

A submitted resignation, an employee serving notice and an employment relationship that has already ended should not be treated as interchangeable descriptions. Ask the person responsible for employment administration to confirm the position under the relevant terms, rather than relying on a manager saying that the respondent has “left”.

Also distinguish an inquiry already underway from a complaint first received after departure. Do not copy a decision from one situation into the other without checking its basis.

Hypothetical example: A respondent submits a resignation during an inquiry and offers to leave immediately. HR has not yet determined its effective date. The committee should obtain that information, preserve the record and seek a focused assessment of its authority. It should not mark the allegation resolved simply because a resignation email exists.

Identify the legal basis before deciding the next step

Section 11(1) of the PoSH Act links the inquiry, where the respondent is an employee, to applicable service rules, or the prescribed procedure where no such rules exist.[1]

Ask for advice that addresses this actual employment relationship and procedural stage. A useful written question is: “On these dates, under these governing provisions, what authority supports continuing this inquiry, and what objections must be considered?”

Put the applicable service rules, employment terms and workplace policy alongside the statutory framework. Ask the adviser to identify any binding judgment or court order that affects the answer. Do not assume that a policy clause settles a statutory jurisdiction question.

If someone relies on a decision about retirement or public-service disciplinary proceedings, ask them to explain its relevance to resignation in this workplace. Check the governing rule and the facts before borrowing the outcome. This article does not rely on a judgment establishing a universal post-resignation rule.

Keep the assessment focused and prompt. Record any objection raised by a party and how it was addressed, rather than leaving the jurisdiction question buried in an email chain.

Separate inquiry authority from the available remedy

The practical question “What can still be done?” should not replace the legal question “Can this committee proceed?”

Section 13(3)(ii) provides a compensation mechanism and specifically addresses inability to deduct from salary because of absence or cessation of employment, allowing a direction to the respondent to pay.[1] Our reading is that this makes automatic closure on the ground of departure unsafe; it does not, by itself, settle every dispute about initiating or continuing an inquiry.[1]

Avoid the opposite overstatement as well. Do not promise that every employment sanction remains available after exit. Identify the legal basis and responsible authority for each proposed action. Treat questions about final settlement, salary, benefits or recovery separately; this guide is not authority to freeze payments.

Ungender’s article on the IC’s quasi-judicial role explains the distinction between committee findings and employer implementation.[3] That distinction is particularly useful when employment status changes during a case.

Preserve participation when workplace access ends

If continuation is legally supported, plan how the respondent will receive communications and participate after company access is disabled.

Confirm a suitable contact channel and keep a record of notices and delivery. Arrange controlled access to relevant inquiry material rather than leaving a former employee’s company account active indefinitely. Explain how documents can be submitted and how hearing arrangements will be communicated.

Section 19 includes employer assistance in securing respondent and witness attendance and providing information the committee requires.[1] For the exit workflow, translate that support into named tasks for HR, IT and the authorised records custodian.

If a respondent stops replying, distinguish a delivery failure from a refusal to participate. Check the applicable procedure before considering an ex parte step. Do not treat resignation or silence as an admission, and do not replace the required process with a manager’s instruction to “finish without them”.

Preserve records without widening access

Before routine account deletion or device reallocation, identify relevant material and arrange proportionate preservation through authorised custodians. Record what was retained, where it is held and who can access it. Keep working copies traceable to the original submission.

Do not make an unlimited copy of someone’s personal communications merely because they are leaving. Define what is relevant and obtain advice where access or collection authority is uncertain.

Section 16 restricts disclosure to the public, press and media of specified complaint information, identities, proceedings, recommendations and action taken.[1] As an operational safeguard, keep case material out of general exit announcements and informal reference discussions. Seek advice before responding to an external request about the matter.

Ungender’s first-day HR disclosure protocol separates preservation and handover from an unofficial HR inquiry.[6] The same separation is useful when exit administration runs alongside a pending complaint.

Explain the case status accurately

Give the parties an appropriate update about what is being checked and the next procedural step. Do not tell the complainant that departure proves the allegation, or tell the respondent that acceptance of a resignation amounts to exoneration.

If the assessment supports continuation, record the basis, participation arrangements and next action. If it identifies a jurisdictional barrier, document the reasoning and obtain advice on the appropriate route. An unexplained status label such as “closed: employee resigned” leaves the substantive question unanswered.

At the reporting stage, section 13(1) requires the inquiry report to be made available to the concerned parties.[1] Plan a suitable delivery channel if a party no longer has a workplace email address.

For employers reviewing this process, Ungender’s PoSH advisory services include inquiry support.[5] A useful brief is specific: assess authority, preserve relevant records, maintain participation and distinguish available remedies from routine exit administration.

The exit checklist and the complaint record should remain separate, with enough coordination to prevent lost evidence or missed communications. Before closing either task, the responsible person should be able to explain what was decided, on what basis and what remains to be done.

General practitioner guidance, not advice on a particular complaint. The cited India Code edition is dated 31 August 2021; it is not represented as an October 2026 consolidation. Case-specific advice should check applicable current law, rules and judicial authority.

Sources

[1] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2104/1/A2013-14.pdf
[3] https://www.ungender.in/internal-committee-quasi-judicial-role-posh
[5] https://www.ungender.in/posh-compliance-services
[6] https://www.ungender.in/hr-sexual-harassment-disclosure-first-24-hours