Retaliation During a PoSH Inquiry: Who Reviews Appraisals, Transfers and Reporting Lines?

A PoSH complaint is being examined. Meanwhile, the appraisal cycle closes, a transfer is proposed and someone must approve next month’s assignments. The organisation needs a way to review those decisions without asking the Internal Committee to run the business or allowing management to influence its findings.

The practical answer is to name a suitable employer-side reviewer, separate from anyone whose conduct or decisions are under scrutiny, and keep that review distinct from the IC’s statutory work. This is a recommended governance arrangement, not a new committee mandated by the PoSH Act.

The aim is to examine a work decision on its own evidence. Do not assume that every unfavourable change proves retaliation, or that describing a change as routine makes scrutiny unnecessary.

Separate statutory relief from management review

Section 12 of the PoSH Act provides that, during a pending inquiry and on the aggrieved woman’s written request, the committee may recommend transfer of either party, leave for the aggrieved woman, or other prescribed relief.[1] The employer must implement the recommendations and report implementation to the committee.[1]

Rule 8(a) of the 2013 Rules addresses performance reporting specifically: on the aggrieved woman’s written request, the committee may recommend restraining the respondent from reporting on her work performance or writing her confidential report, and assigning that work to another officer.[8] That is a specific statutory route, not a universal automatic appraisal ban triggered by any disclosure.[8]

Keep an employer’s separate management review clearly labelled. Identify its authority under the applicable employment framework and policy. Do not call an HR decision an IC recommendation, or make an internal approval layer a reason to delay implementing statutory relief.

Name the reviewer before an urgent decision arrives

Appoint a reviewer with enough authority to question the proposed action and require supporting records. Check for involvement in the allegation, the disputed decision or pressure from the person proposing it. If the usual HR head or business leader is conflicted, specify an alternative reporting route.

Use the following allocation as a recommended working arrangement:

• The proposing manager supplies the business reason, supporting material and proposed effective date.
• The designated reviewer examines the decision’s basis, conflicts and likely effect, and records the outcome under their delegated authority.
• HR coordinates implementation and keeps an appropriately restricted record.
• The IC considers matters within its remit, including requests for statutory interim relief. It should not be asked to approve every business decision.

For concerns that first reach HR, use a clear receiving and referral process. Ungender’s first-24-hours guide addresses that initial handover; the protocol here concerns decisions while a matter remains pending.[5]

Review appraisals against records, not impressions

Ask for the review period, previously communicated objectives, dated feedback and the evidence supporting any changed assessment. Check who drafted the rating, who supplied comments and who can influence calibration or the final decision.

Where a recommendation under Rule 8(a) applies, changing the signatory alone is a poor implementation test. Verify that the reassigned officer is actually doing the performance reporting and that the restricted respondent has not retained the same function through informal instructions.

Do not turn protective review into a guaranteed favourable rating. Require an assessment supported by work records and the applicable process. Equally, do not treat time spent participating in the inquiry as unexplained absence without examining authorised arrangements.

Hypothetical example: A complainant receives a proposed lower rating shortly after filing a complaint. The reviewer obtains the pre-complaint objectives and feedback, examines the manager’s stated reasons, and checks whether a performance-reporting restriction applies. Timing prompts scrutiny; it does not settle the question. Any concern about pressure or interference is also routed to the appropriate process.

Examine what a transfer changes in practice

For a proposed transfer, ask who initiated it, when the reason arose and what alternatives were considered. Review its effect on pay, responsibilities, location, commute and career opportunities. Record the affected person’s concerns rather than treating the absence of an objection as agreement.

If a change is proposed for protection, ask whether it unnecessarily disadvantages the person seeking help. Moving that person should not be the unquestioned default. Where section 12 relief is sought, route the written request to the competent committee instead of substituting an informal management arrangement.[1]

For an ordinary management transfer, obtain advice on the relevant service rules, contract and policy where authority or fairness is disputed. This guide does not establish a general employer power to transfer anyone in any workplace.

Document the purpose, implementation owner and review date of temporary arrangements. Avoid describing a protective measure as punishment or as a finding that the underlying allegation is proved.

Check the working reporting line, not just the chart

When reporting arrangements change, inspect the actual approval points: leave, rosters, assignments, client access, travel and performance inputs. Ask who can override the new manager or send instructions through another supervisor.

Give each responsible administrator a limited implementation instruction. The person changing an approval workflow needs to know what authority is moving and when; they do not automatically need the complaint narrative.

Section 16 restricts publication or communication to the public, press and media of specified complaint and inquiry information.[1] The limited-access approach recommended here is an operational safeguard, not a claim that every manager is entitled to inspect the case file.

Check the result with the affected employee through a suitable contact channel. A revised chart is not enough if the old approval dependency remains in the HR system.

Give new concerns an owner and a separate record

Offer a clear route for reporting alleged pressure, exclusion or adverse treatment, including concerns raised by witnesses. Record the event, date, person involved, relevant material and immediate support requested. Do not promise that every concern falls within the IC’s jurisdiction; establish the appropriate committee, employment-policy or other legal route.

Keep the examination of the alleged retaliatory act distinguishable from the original harassment complaint. Do not wait for the original finding before addressing an immediate safety issue, but do not punish someone for retaliation without the applicable fair process either.

Use a short decision record: proposed action; supporting reason and documents; conflicts checked; any applicable committee recommendation; decision and authority; implementation owner; review date. Record a decision to proceed as carefully as a decision to change or pause the proposal.

Verify implementation before closing the review

Check the changed appraisal permissions, issued transfer instruction or updated reporting workflow. Ask whether the promised arrangement works in practice and record unresolved points.

Ungender’s article on institutional inaction and workplace safety examines responsibility for response failures.[9] Here, the immediate test is narrower: who verified that a particular protective or administrative decision was carried out?

If those responsibilities are unclear, Ungender’s PoSH compliance advisory covers policy and case-management processes.[6] A useful brief would request a conflict-aware review protocol with named decision-makers and implementation checks, while leaving findings to the competent committee.

General practitioner guidance, not advice on a particular complaint. Recommendations above do not replace applicable law, service rules or court orders. Legal sources reviewed: the India Code Act edition updated 31 August 2021 and the original Rules notification dated 9 December 2013, both freshly retrieved from their official sources on 15 October 2026. Neither is represented as an October 2026 consolidated edition.

Sources

[1] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2104/1/A2013-14.pdf
[5] https://www.ungender.in/hr-sexual-harassment-disclosure-first-24-hours
[6] https://www.ungender.in/posh-compliance-services
[8] https://shebox.wcd.gov.in/assets/uploaded_content/SH_Rules,_20132.pdf
[9] https://www.ungender.in/who-zero-tolerance-institutional-inaction-workplace-safety