JUDGMENT : I.M. Quddusi, A.C.J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the Order Dated 7.8.2008 passed by the Orissa Human Rights Commission in O.H.R.C. Case No. 440 of 2008 (suo-motu) 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was serving as Women Assistant Marshall in Orissa Legislative Assembly since March, 2001. During the year 2007-08, it is alleged in the petition, that at the instance of Opp, Party No. 1, who was the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly, the Petitioner was being asked to perform duties during odd hours & to discharge functions which are not within her work schedule. It is also alleged by the Petitioner that Opposite Party No. 1 continued to sexually harass her by sending vehicles to her residence late in the night & asking through subordinates to have sexual relationships with him & to meet him when he was lonely & even he often used to make obscene indications to the Petitioner. For the last few months, behaviours of Opp. Party No. 1 towards the Petitioner was quite unbearable. As the Petitioner did not yield to the former Speaker's pressure tactics, she was placed under suspension on 7.9.2007 & again on 16.2.2008 & faced disciplinary proceedings. The Petitioner twice wrote to the Secretary of the Orissa Legislative Assembly complaining about, her sexual harassment & mental torture against Opposite Party No. 1 but to no effect. She was rather threatened with dire consequences by some anti-socials at the behest of the former Speaker & she felt very insecure. Thereafter, the Petitioner lodged F.I.R. on 27.3.2008 in Manila P.S., BBSR which was registered as Mahila P.S. Case No. 56 of 2008 Under Sections 506/507/509/34 I.P.C. In course of the investigation, police recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Chairperson of the State Commission for Women took suo motu congnizance of the matter & visited the Petitioner's house at Village-Kuhunda under Mahanga Police Station of Cuttack district on 3.4.2008 & recorded her statement & the statement of her parents in the process of inquiry. The Chairperson of the State Commission for Women was accompanied by SCW Member, Smt. Sulochana Mallik & Smt. Harapriya Nayak, Assistant Field Officer. The Chairperson of the State Commission for Women was accompanied by SCW Member, Smt. Sulochana Mallik & Smt. Harapriya Nayak, Assistant Field Officer. Due to news published in the print media, the Special Secretary to Government of Orissa, Home Department vide Letter No. 17638/HRPC(O)-2/2008 dated 3.4.2008 addressed to the Secretary of the State Human Rights Commission requested for an inquiry into the allegations of sexual harassment of the Writ Petitioner by Opp. Party No. 1 The State Human Rights Commission, vide its Order Dated 4.4.2008, took suo motu action & conducted the inquiry recorded the statements. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to peruse here Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which is reproduced as under; 12. Functions of the Commission: The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely: (a) inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf, into complaint of: (i) or violation of human rights or abetment thereof; (ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant; (b) intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a Court with the approval of such Court; (c) visit, under intimation to the State Government, any jailor any other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons are detained or lodged for purpose of treatment, reformation or protection to study the living conditions of the inmates & make recommendations thereon; (d) review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights & recommend measures for their effective implementation; (e) review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights & recommend appropriate remedial measures; (f) study treaties & other international instruments on human rights & make recommendations for their effective implementation; (g) undertake & promote research in the field of human rights; (h) spread human rights literacy among various Sections of society & promote awarness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars & other available means; (i) encourage the efforts of non-Governmental organization & institutions working in the field of human rights; & (j) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights 3. The Human Rights Commission took action suo motu, recorded statements, perused the F.I.R & documents & ultimately it has held that: 16. For all the reasons mentioned above, we are inclined to hold that no credible evidence was produced before us in support of the allegations constituting violation of her human right against M.M. We make it clear that investigation of Mahila P.S. Case No. 56 of 2008 shall continue according to law without being influenced by any observation made by us in this order. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Human Rights Commission, the Petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition with the following grounds: i. The inquiry by the Orissa Human Rights Commission is in violation of proviso to Sub-section 5 of Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 as the State Commission for Women (S.C.W) was already in the midst of enquiry into the self same allegations; ii. The Commission took cognizance entered into inquiry on the basis of complaint/request made by the State Government in Home Department letter No. 17638/HRPC(P)-2-2008 dated 3.4.2008 in camouflage of suo motu inquiry. The Commission is not vested with the power of such inquiry as is evident from Clause (a) of Section 12 of the said Act. iii. The inquiry by the Commission is not in accordance with Clause-(b) of Section 12 since the Commission before intervening in the matter did not seek/obtain approval of the Court of the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar before whom G.R. Case No. 1316/2008 (arising out of Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No. 56/08(20) dated 29.3.2008 under Sections 506/507/509/34 I.P.C. lodged by the Petitioner) was pending. iv. The Commission examined the Opposite Party No. 1 & throe other witnesses on his behalf. It also received & marked several documents as Exhibits on behalf of the said Opposite Party. But the Petitioner's Counsel, who was present, was not give the opportunity to cross-examine the Opposite Party No. 1 & his three witnesses. There has been violation of principal of natural justice & the procedure provided in Chapter-XVIII of C.P.C. read with Section 13 of We Protection of Human Rights Act. 5. Mr. Das, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken serious action in the case of sexual harassment. There has been violation of principal of natural justice & the procedure provided in Chapter-XVIII of C.P.C. read with Section 13 of We Protection of Human Rights Act. 5. Mr. Das, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken serious action in the case of sexual harassment. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 provides that Sections 9, 10, 12, 13 to 18 relating to National Commission shall apply to State Commission. In Section 36 of the Act, it has been provided that the Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force. However, in Section-2(C) of the Act, "Commission" has been defined as National Human Rights commission & the "State Commission" has been defined as the "State Human Rights Commission". 6. The State Commission for Women, in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit, has. denied the allegation of the Petitioner that the Commission for Women was in the midst of inquiry into the self same allegation. On 31.3.2008, the Chairperson of the Orissa State Commission for Women had sent a letter to the Hon'ble Governor & Chief Minister of Orissa stating therein that in fact the Petitioner has not yet lodged any complaint before the Commission against Hon'ble Speaker Maheswar Mohanty, the Opposite Party No. 1, but the Commission has suo motu collected a copy of the F.I.R. lodged in the Manila Police Station, Bhubaneswar & it requested that the matter may be inquired into by proper forum & legal action may be taken against the culprit if the allegation is found true. Thereafter, the HRC received a letter of the State Government on 4.4.2008. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has taken a plea that since the State Commission for Women was in the midst of inquiry, Human Rights Commission should not have taken any action in the matter. Such plea appears to be incorrect in view of the letter dated 31.3.2005 of the Chairperson of the Orissa State Commission for Women, who herself requested the Hon'ble Governor & Chief Minister that the matter may be inquired into by proper forum. Therefore, the Commission took cognizance suo motu vide Order Dated. 4.4.2008 when there was no inquiry pending before any other Commission. 8. Therefore, the Commission took cognizance suo motu vide Order Dated. 4.4.2008 when there was no inquiry pending before any other Commission. 8. Further when the Commission took cognizance, the Petitioner participated in the proceedings & did not object to the same; rather supported in writing vide letter dated 4.6.2008 (Annexure-A/1)'to the counter affidavit of O.P.1. Let us peruse what the Petitioner had written to the Chairman, Human Rights Commission on 22.4.2008, which is reproduced as under: Sir, Ref: Notice No. 440 of 2008 dt.15.4.2008 I am grateful that, Human Rights Commission has taken up the case taken cognizance of the matter & I am sure I will get proper justice from you, Sir. Due to my personal problem, I may please be allowed 30 days time to submit my written statement. Since I am getting several threatening letters, I shall be grateful if you could please fix up another date very confidentially or else I may be allowed to submit written statement as stated above. With regards Sd/- Gayatri Panda. The Petitioner had also approached the Human Rights Commission by writing a letter in Oriya, English translation of the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: xx xx xx Last not the least, Sir, I hope that I will get proper justice from Human Rights Commission. In the meantime, Police has recorded my statement on many occasions. Women Commission has started inquiry but neither the inquiry has proceeded even a step nor any action has been taken against the culprit. I know that Maheswar Mohanty is a member of the ruling party & former Speaker of the Assembly. Still then I hope from the Human Rights Commission that if the law is equal for all, then I will get proper justice from the Human Rights Commission. Sd/- Gayatri Panda Dt. 4.6.2008. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further alleged that the inquiry by the Commission is not in accordance with Clause-b of Section 12 since the Commission, before investigating the matter, did not seek or obtain the approval of the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar before whom G.R. Case No. 1316 of 2008 was pending. 10. Sd/- Gayatri Panda Dt. 4.6.2008. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further alleged that the inquiry by the Commission is not in accordance with Clause-b of Section 12 since the Commission, before investigating the matter, did not seek or obtain the approval of the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar before whom G.R. Case No. 1316 of 2008 was pending. 10. With regard to the above, Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act shows that the Commission's functions have been laid down in which it has been at the very outset indicated that the Commission shall perform all or any of the functions mentioned in Clauses (a) to (j) In Clause (a), it has been provided that the Commission shall inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf, into complaint of (i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof or (ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant & in Clause (b), it has been provided that the Commission may intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a Court with the approval of such Court. The Commission had chosen the function mentioned in Clause (a) & not in Clause (b) & it took suo motu inquiry into the complaint of violation of human rights. It was not necessary for the Commission to invoke Clause (b) while invoking Clause (a). Therefore, there was no question of intervention by the Commission with the proceedings pending before the Court of the Learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No. 1316 of 2008. 11. With regard to the 4th ground regarding denial of opportunity to cross-examine, it is to be noticed that the Commission was -making inquiry at its own level. It was not a Court's proceeding & also in the matter there were allegations against the former Speaker of the Legislative Assembly & not against the Petitioner. The Commission has a set of procedure for inquiry. Therefore, during course of inquiry, the question of cross-examination does not arise. 12. The Commission, in the concluding part of its report, has observed as under: 16. The Commission has a set of procedure for inquiry. Therefore, during course of inquiry, the question of cross-examination does not arise. 12. The Commission, in the concluding part of its report, has observed as under: 16. For all the reasons mentioned above, we are inclined to hold that no credible evidence was produced before us in support of the allegations constituting violation of her human right against M.M. We make it clear that investigation of Mahila P.S. Case No. 56 of 2008 shall continue according to law without being influenced by any observation made by us in this order; 17. Before parting with the case, we call upon the State Govt. in the Home Department to constitute appropriate mechanism to deal with complaints of sexual harassment of working women at work placed in different departments & Dist. Offices. It should also take appropriate steps to carry out other directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishakha. 13. Section 12(a) of the Act provides only two modes for taking action. The first mode is suo motu inquiry & the second mode is on a petition presented to it by the victim or any person on his behalf. No action could be taken on the letter of the State Government rather it could have been treated as information only to the Commission by the State Government. Therefore, the Commission took cognizance of the matter suo motu & in our opinion, there was no illegality committed by the Commission in taking suo motu action. 14. Section 18 of the Act provides the steps during & after the inquiry. Clause (e) of Section 18 provides that the Commission shall send a copy of its inquiry report together with its recommendations to the concerned Government or authority & the concerned Government or authority shall, within a period of one month, or such further time as the Commission may allow, forward its comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon to the Commission. Clause (f) of the same Section provides that the Commission shall publish its inquiry report together with the comments of the concerned Government or authority, if any, & the action taken or proposed to be taken by the concerned Government or authority on the recommendations of the Commission. Clause (f) of the same Section provides that the Commission shall publish its inquiry report together with the comments of the concerned Government or authority, if any, & the action taken or proposed to be taken by the concerned Government or authority on the recommendations of the Commission. Such report together with recommendation shall be sent to the State Government where the inquiry discloses the Commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights by a public servant. 15. Therefore, in view of the above, the recommendations sent by the Commission are not binding on the State Government. If the Commission has found that no credible evidence was produced before it in support of the allegations stating violation of Petitioner's human right against the Opp. Party No. 1, the same would not affect the investigation of the criminal case which is Mahila P.S. Case 56/08(20) dated 29.3.2008, In Sub-section (a) of Section 18 of the Act, it has been provided that the Commission may recommend to the concerned Government or authority the initiation of proceedings for prosecution. Since in the instant case, F.I.R. has been lodged & investigation is in progress, the Commission itself has observed that such investigation shall continue according to law without being influenced by any observation made by it in the impugned order. 16. Therefore there is no occasion for this Court to quash the impugned report of the Commission. Hence, we dispose of the Writ Petition with the direction to the Investigating Officer of Mahila P.S. Case 56/08(20) dated 29.3.2008 to investigate the case & conclude the investigation in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by any observation of the Human Rights Commission including that no credible evidence was produced before it, as it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to collect the evidence to arrive at a true conclusion in submitting the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court. There would be no order as to costs. Sanju Panda, J. 17. I agree.