MUMBAI, Oct. 20 -- The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a doctor accused of sexually harassing a woman during a medical examination, rejecting his challenge to the composition of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) that found him guilty. A division bench of justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe, in its order dated October 14, held that the doctor's plea was "devoid of merits" and clarified the intent of lawmakers behind the Sexual Harassment at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. "The legislature has consciously used the words 'woman employee at a senior level' and not 'a woman at the workplace senior to the officer against whom allegations of sexual conduct are made'," the court observed, clarifying that the presiding officer of an ICC need not necessarily be senior to the accused officer. The petitioner, a doctor employed with a public sector enterprise under the central government, was accused of sexually harassing a colleague's daughter during a medical examination. The woman's father lodged a complaint with the company on July 27, 2024, following which a six-member ICC was constituted on July 29. After conducting an inquiry and giving the accused an opportunity to present his defence and written submissions, the ICC found him guilty in its report dated July 14. The doctor had approached the high court challenging the ICC report and related disciplinary proceedings, arguing that the committee's constitution was flawed. He claimed that the ICC's presiding officer, though a woman, was not senior to him, which he said violated the 2013 law. "Non-compliance of this requirement vitiates the inquiry since its inception," his petition stated. He also objected to the appointment of certain ICC members, arguing that one was a consultant rather than an employee, another member from an NGO had not been appointed, and a third lived in the same building as the complainant's family, raising concerns of bias. The company's counsel countered that the doctor had raised no objections for nine months after the ICC's formation and had participated fully in the proceedings. The presiding officer, the lawyer said, was of the same rank as the accused doctor, which satisfied the law's requirement. The bench agreed, stating that the petitioner "failed to make out any case of legal defect, much less any defect in the constitution of the ICC." It also found no substance in the objections raised against other members of the committee. Noting that the doctor had not participated in the inquiry under protest, the court observed, "Having received an unfavourable result in the said inquiry, the petitioner is estopped from questioning the constitution of the ICC."...