Shillong, November 6: The Ombudsman of the Meghalaya Cricket Association (MCA), retired Justice B.D. Agarwal, has upheld the suspension of Honorary Secretary Raynold Kharkamni for the remainder of his tenure over his alleged failure to act on sexual harassment and misconduct complaints raised by members of the Meghalaya Under-23 Women’s Cricket Team.
In a final order issued on November 6, 2026, the Ombudsman held that Kharkamni did not deserve to continue as an office-bearer of the MCA, citing the findings of the Meghalaya State Commission for Women (MSCW) and observations made by the Meghalaya High Court.
The order was passed in Complaint Case No. 2 of 2026, filed by MCA President James P.K. Sangma against the Honorary Secretary, seeking disciplinary action based on the findings and recommendations of the State Commission for Women.
The case originated from a representation submitted by Sangma on July 1, 2026, following complaints of alleged sexual harassment and misconduct against the then Head Coach Hemant Roy and Team Manager Sanjay Mandal.
According to the order, the Ombudsman’s office had earlier received a written complaint dated May 8, 2026, signed by 13 players of the Meghalaya Under-23 Women’s Cricket Team.
The players alleged that they had previously brought incidents of inappropriate conduct to the attention of the then MCA office-bearers, including through an email addressed to Honorary Secretary Raynold Kharkamni.
However, they claimed that instead of taking appropriate action, the secretary continued appointing the accused head coach for tournaments and training programmes.
The players stated that the continued appointments had caused prolonged psychological distress and affected their ability to participate in training in an environment of safety and dignity.
They sought action against Head Coach Hemant Roy, Team Manager Sanjay Mandal and Honorary Secretary Raynold Kharkamni.
The Ombudsman noted that the players had not personally appeared before him and that he had therefore not independently verified the correctness of their allegations. However, following the complaint filed by the MCA President and the findings of the MSCW, proceedings were initiated against the Honorary Secretary.
The order stated that repeated notices were issued to Kharkamni on July 6, July 24 and August 10, 2026, directing him to appear and submit his response, with a warning that proceedings could continue in his absence.
Despite the notices, the respondent did not appear or contest the case.
The Ombudsman subsequently heard arguments from counsel for the complainant on August 25. Further proceedings were deferred as connected matters were pending before the Meghalaya High Court.
Following the High Court’s judgment dated October 30, another hearing was held on November 5 before the final order was issued.
Referring to the MSCW’s orders dated June 5 and June 26, 2026, the Ombudsman observed that the Commission had examined complaints relating to sexual harassment, misconduct and alleged institutional negligence within the MCA.
The Commission’s second report found that complaints of sexual harassment had been sent to the MCA’s official email address on December 2 and 3, 2025, but no prompt institutional action had been taken by the office-bearers then responsible.
The MSCW observed that despite having access to the official email account and knowledge of the complaints, the concerned officials had failed to initiate an immediate inquiry, communicate with the complainants or activate a grievance-redressal mechanism.
The Commission further found that the MCA had not constituted an Internal Committee as required under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
It held that the failure of the then office-bearers to act on the complaints, along with the absence of an Internal Committee, amounted to serious negligence and non-compliance with statutory obligations.
The MSCW’s findings concerned then President Naba Bhattacharjee, Secretary Raynold Kharkamni, Operations Manager Shining Star Lyngdoh and Treasurer Dhrubajyoti Thakuria.
However, the Ombudsman clarified that the complaint before him concerned only Kharkamni, as the other persons named in the MSCW proceedings were former office-bearers.
The order also referred to concerns raised by the women cricketers regarding the absence of counselling facilities, female coaches and adequate nutritional support.
It further noted allegations that players had faced pressure discouraging them from approaching the Commission, as well as concerns regarding the confidentiality of their complaints.
The MSCW had also raised concerns over alleged questionable activities at a hotel used during women’s cricket camps in Nongpoh and recommended further investigation into the allegations.
The Commission directed that the MCA permanently discontinue using the hotel for its cricket teams and staff.
Referring to the Meghalaya High Court’s judgment of October 30, the Ombudsman noted that the Court had considered the suspension of the Honorary Secretary an appropriate interim measure in light of the statutory requirements under the POSH Act, 2013.
The High Court observed that the temporary suspension was justified to protect complainants and preserve evidence while disciplinary proceedings were pending.
The Ombudsman further noted that the High Court had referred to the MSCW’s findings concerning the alleged suppression of official complaint emails and the failure to take appropriate action.
After examining the available records, the Ombudsman stated that a separate inquiry into the allegations was unnecessary in view of the findings already recorded by the State Commission for Women and the observations of the High Court.
Emphasising the importance of protecting women players, the Ombudsman observed that sexual harassment violates women’s fundamental rights to equality, dignity and a safe working environment.
He expressed serious concern that the complaints of the women cricketers had allegedly been disregarded while the head coach continued receiving appointments.
The Ombudsman held that the failure of the Honorary Secretary to address the grievances of the players was contrary to the objectives and spirit of the law and could not be treated with leniency.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Justice Agarwal concluded that Kharkamni should not continue as an office-bearer of the association.
Accordingly, the Ombudsman upheld the suspension order issued by MCA President James P.K. Sangma on June 27, 2026, and directed that the suspension remain in force for the remaining tenure of the elected MCA body.
The Ombudsman also directed Kharkamni to immediately hand over all MCA property, files, physical and digital records, access credentials and equipment in his possession or custody to the MCA President.
With these directions, the Ombudsman disposed of the complaint case.
The order brings the disciplinary proceedings against the Honorary Secretary before the MCA Ombudsman to a conclusion, while highlighting serious concerns over the association’s handling of sexual harassment complaints and its responsibility to ensure a safe environment for women cricketers.
