In late December 2025, a crisis erupted at King George's Medical University (KGMU) in Lucknow. A junior resident doctor accused a senior resident doctor of sexual exploitation, blackmail, and pressure to convert religion. The accused doctor then reportedly went missing as police and the university's Internal Committee attempted to locate him. The institution took several steps including filing an FIR under serious charges, suspending the accused, restricting campus access except for inquiry proceedings, and implementing security measures for the complainant including safe accommodation. A fact-finding committee began its probe while police teams conducted raids. This situation is a nightmare scenario for any HR or compliance function: the moment when process (ICC inquiry) collides with criminal allegations, personal safety risk, and the public's demand for answers.
The emotional damage here is not limited to one survivor. In hospitals and universities, power is structural: senior-junior hierarchies, night shifts, hostel dependence, recommendation culture, and the fear that "everyone knows everyone." When an accused person disappears, the institution loses the single most important thing it can offer the survivor and the workforce - the assurance that the system can hold power accountable. Colleagues then split into factions: some demand immediate justice, some protect reputation, some go silent out of fear. The survivor carries not just trauma, but isolation - because every conversation becomes political. For managers, the shock is realizing that workplace safety is not a slogan; it is logistics: secure housing, controlled access, witness protection, and communication discipline so leaks do not retraumatize the complainant.
From a compliance and leadership lens, this is where POSH maturity is tested. The POSH Act expects timely inquiry, confidentiality, and interim relief. But cases with criminal dimensions demand coordination: evidence preservation, non-interference with police processes, and strict access controls. HR should have a "high-risk allegation protocol" ready before the first complaint arrives: immediate safety assessment, interim measures documented, campus/office access rules, IT log preservation, and a single spokesperson model to prevent rumor-driven harm. Also recognize the legal exposure: retaliation risk, defamation cross-claims, and procedural challenges if the inquiry is seen as biased or delayed. The point is not only compliance - it is trust repair. In 2026, the workforce judges leadership less by "policy existence" and more by crisis handling quality.
When the accused disappears or refuses cooperation, what should an institution prioritize first - survivor safety, speedy inquiry closure, public transparency, or evidence preservation?
What should a "high-risk POSH + criminal allegation" playbook contain so HR is not improvising under pressure - interim relief templates, access controls, comms rules, external counsel triggers, or something else?
The emotional damage here is not limited to one survivor. In hospitals and universities, power is structural: senior-junior hierarchies, night shifts, hostel dependence, recommendation culture, and the fear that "everyone knows everyone." When an accused person disappears, the institution loses the single most important thing it can offer the survivor and the workforce - the assurance that the system can hold power accountable. Colleagues then split into factions: some demand immediate justice, some protect reputation, some go silent out of fear. The survivor carries not just trauma, but isolation - because every conversation becomes political. For managers, the shock is realizing that workplace safety is not a slogan; it is logistics: secure housing, controlled access, witness protection, and communication discipline so leaks do not retraumatize the complainant.
From a compliance and leadership lens, this is where POSH maturity is tested. The POSH Act expects timely inquiry, confidentiality, and interim relief. But cases with criminal dimensions demand coordination: evidence preservation, non-interference with police processes, and strict access controls. HR should have a "high-risk allegation protocol" ready before the first complaint arrives: immediate safety assessment, interim measures documented, campus/office access rules, IT log preservation, and a single spokesperson model to prevent rumor-driven harm. Also recognize the legal exposure: retaliation risk, defamation cross-claims, and procedural challenges if the inquiry is seen as biased or delayed. The point is not only compliance - it is trust repair. In 2026, the workforce judges leadership less by "policy existence" and more by crisis handling quality.
When the accused disappears or refuses cooperation, what should an institution prioritize first - survivor safety, speedy inquiry closure, public transparency, or evidence preservation?
What should a "high-risk POSH + criminal allegation" playbook contain so HR is not improvising under pressure - interim relief templates, access controls, comms rules, external counsel triggers, or something else?