Withdrawal of Complaint Mid-Inquiry: Can the Internal Committee Still Proceed?

Midway through an inquiry, it isn't unusual for a complainant to say she wants to withdraw — worn down by the process, fearful of workplace fallout, pressured informally, or simply reconsidering after an apology or informal resolution. This puts the Internal Committee in a genuinely difficult spot: respect her autonomy, but also not lose sight of the fact that the inquiry exists to serve a broader interest in a safe workplace, not solely the complainant's individual preference at any given moment.

There's no absolute right to withdraw and automatically terminate the inquiry

The POSH Act does not contain an explicit provision stating that a complaint is automatically closed the moment the complainant expresses a wish to withdraw. This surprises many HR teams, who assume — reasonably, on first instinct — that if the person who filed the complaint no longer wants to pursue it, that should be the end of the matter. The Committee's role, however, is not purely adversarial or complainant-driven in the way a private civil dispute might be; it also carries a quasi-institutional responsibility to establish facts and protect the broader workplace, particularly where the conduct alleged, if true, could pose an ongoing risk to others.

What the Committee should actually do when withdrawal is requested

Good practice, and the approach we advise Committees toward, involves several distinct steps rather than an automatic reflex in either direction:

• Understand why she wants to withdraw. Is it genuine disinterest in pursuing the matter further, or does it stem from fear of retaliation, workplace pressure, or intimidation? This is a sensitive but essential conversation — the Committee should create space for her to speak candidly, ideally without the respondent or others present.
• Record the request in writing, along with the stated reason, to maintain a clear record of what happened and why.
• Assess whether there are independent grounds to continue. If the alleged conduct is serious, involves a pattern affecting multiple people, or there's credible evidence independent of the complainant's continued active participation, the Committee retains discretion to proceed — particularly where continuing serves the Act's broader purpose of maintaining a safe working environment for others, not just resolving one individual's grievance.
• If withdrawal appears to stem from retaliation or pressure, this itself may constitute a separate violation. Under Section 16 and general principles against victimisation, any retaliation against a complainant for having filed a complaint is a serious matter the Committee and employer should act on independently, regardless of whether the original complaint proceeds.

Distinguishing withdrawal from conciliation-based settlement

It's worth being precise about a related but different scenario: if the parties reach a genuine conciliated settlement under Section 10 (with the complainant's request, and never involving a monetary settlement), that formally closes the matter through a recorded, employer-implemented settlement — this is procedurally distinct from a unilateral withdrawal request mid-inquiry, and is the Act's intended, legitimate route to an early resolution where appropriate.

What if the Committee decides to continue despite the withdrawal request?

This is a genuinely delicate scenario, both practically and from a wellbeing standpoint. If the Committee determines the matter is serious enough to warrant continuing — for instance, credible corroborating evidence exists, or the conduct alleged suggests risk to others — it should:

• Communicate clearly and compassionately with the complainant about why the process is continuing, and what her role (or reduced role) will be going forward.
• Consider whether the inquiry can proceed substantially on documentary evidence, other witness testimony, or admissions, minimising the burden of continued active participation on a reluctant complainant.
• Never treat her withdrawal request itself as evidence that the underlying allegation was false or exaggerated — a chilling and legally risky inference to draw.

What if the Committee accepts the withdrawal and closes the matter?

Where the Committee is satisfied withdrawal is genuine, uncoerced, and there's no independent basis or institutional need to continue, closing the inquiry is a legitimate outcome. This should still be documented formally — the reason for closure, the Committee's assessment that no retaliation or pressure was at play, and confirmation that the complainant was informed of her right to refile if circumstances change.

A note on false-complaint concerns

Respondents sometimes argue that a withdrawal implies the complaint was baseless. The Committee should resist this framing. Section 14's provision on action against false or malicious complaints applies only where the Committee has affirmatively found, after due inquiry, that the complaint was false or malicious — not merely because it was withdrawn. Conflating the two risks discouraging genuine complainants from ever exercising their statutory right to reconsider participation.

Key takeaway

A withdrawal request mid-inquiry is not a self-executing off-switch for the process — the Committee retains discretion, and in some cases a responsibility, to assess why the request is being made and whether independent grounds exist to continue. Handling this well requires balancing genuine respect for the complainant's autonomy against the Committee's broader duty to the workplace, and documenting that balance carefully at every step.