ORDER 1. Arguments have been advanced on the part of the petitioner as well as the respondents. 2. For an incidence, which occurred on 20th September, 2010 at Kolkata Airport, petitioner was charge-sheeted on 22nd November, 2010 of having assaulted one ASI/Clerk, Somasundram. After a preliminary inquiry leading to a disciplinary inquiry she has been removed from service. The Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority have rejected her appeal and revision. The petitioner, however, did not participate in the domestic inquiry which concluded ex parte in the finding of guilt against her. Based upon the inquiry report she was imposed with a punishment of removal from service. 3. The petitioner, delinquent employee made a complaint before West Bengal Commission for Women of assault and misbehaviour by one B.K. Das, Deputy Commandant, Somasundram, ASI/Clerk and other associates on 20th September, 2010. Her complaint was forwarded for necessary action to Director General of Police, CISF, Headquarter, Government of India vide memo dated 11th April, 2011, Annexure-15 with copy to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CISF, Airport, NES, Kolkata enclosing her application as well. She had also made a complaint before the Directorate of Public Grievances, Government of India, which was also forwarded to Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances as per Annexure-16 letter dated 10th May, 2011. The department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances forwarded her complaint vide letter dated 27th May, 2011 to Joint Secretary (Cord & PG), Ministry of Home Affairs and an intimation was also sent to the petitioner, Annexure-17. The Ministry of Home, in turn, also forwarded the same to the Director General, CISF through an office memorandum of July, 2011, enclosed as Annexure-18. Petitioner has been communicated by Director General, CISF through Annexure-19 letter no. 2571 dated 12th August, 2011 of the action taken in respect of allegations made by her with regard to incidences of sexual assault/misbhaviour. The communication at Annexure-19 shows that for complaint of sexual assault against one Constable, A.K. Singh on 26th December, 2009, after an inquiry was conducted by the Sector Complaints Committee and the allegations were found true, the said constable was awarded with a penalty of reduction of pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect. An allegation against constable, S.K. Bhagat for an incidence of 11th March, 2010 was not found to be established in a preliminary inquiry. 4. An allegation against constable, S.K. Bhagat for an incidence of 11th March, 2010 was not found to be established in a preliminary inquiry. 4. In respect of her allegation of the instant incidence of 20th December, 2010, which led to her removal from service, it is stated that the preliminary inquiry held into the incident found prima facie case against the petitioner and thereafter a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 36 of CISF Rules, 2011 was conducted against her, which led to the charges being established. As a result, she was awarded penalty of removal vide order dated 26th May, 2011. In respect of allegation against Sri B.K. Das, Deputy Commandant, CISF that he got her beaten up by office staff and ASI, Somasundaram had cut her hair, the same was found to be not proved, on the statement of office staff present and by any documentary evidence by the Enquiry Officer. In respect of allegation of sending obscene SMS on her mobile by Sri B.K. Das, Deputy Commandant, it is stated that the allegation could not be verified due to non-production of Mobile Phone by her before Preliminary Inquiry Officer. In respect of further allegations against one Sri Banga, Commandant and Sri D. Kar, Assistant Commandant, it is stated that an inquiry was conducted by a Senior Commandant and the allegations were found to be false and fabricated. It further appears from Annexure-21 dated 5th January, 2012 that Director General of Police, CISF was also requested to look into the representation of the petitioner in respect of reinstatement by the National Commission for Minority. 5. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have justified the impugned order of punishment arrived at after due observance of procedure for conduct of departmental inquiry in the wake of fact that petitioner had not participated in the departmental inquiry. 6. On previous occasion, learned ASGI was allowed time to obtain instruction whether any inquiry was held on the complaint of the petitioner in respect of same incidence, against the complainant, ASI on whose allegation a departmental proceeding was initiated on 22nd November, 2010 against the petitioner. He was also asked to apprise the Court as to whether any committee is in place under the respondent organization to look into the complaints of sexual harassment. 7. He was also asked to apprise the Court as to whether any committee is in place under the respondent organization to look into the complaints of sexual harassment. 7. In the supplementary affidavit filed thereafter on their behalf, it is stated that no complaint containing allegation of sexual harassment alleged by her for the incidence of 20th September, 2010 was ever received by CISF. Unit at Kolkata Airport. It is stated that the preliminary inquiry report dated 25th September, 2010 concludes that had she been manhandled by any of the CISF personnel at this office, she could have lodged a formal complaint which she failed to do. Further the incidence of 20th September, 2010 is not a separate episode rather the entire incident took place in one transaction, which happened on 20th September, 2010, which was inquired into in a preliminary inquiry taking into account as to whether any case of manhandling of the petitioner could have been possible. However, in the absence of any formal complaint by the petitioner as has been alleged the case of indiscipline was found to be prima facie established leading to the departmental inquiry against the petitioner. Petitioner on her part has enclosed certain documents at Annexure 10 dated 20th September, 2010; Annexure 11 dated 29th September, 2010 and Annexure 12 dated 27th September, 2010 stating that such complaints were made on her part. The receipt of which are disputed by the respondents and no evidence of receipt of such complaint is either on record. 8. Petitioner has raised a grievance that the incidence of 20th September, 2010 of assault by the petitioner is not the complete story. She has alleged that the incidence was a result of provocation and assault on the part of the named persons therein. It has been inquired in an one sided manner against the petitioner, while allegations made by the petitioner have not been given a proper inquiry as per the provisions of CISF Rules i.e. Rule 36(2A) and also in line with the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Vishaka and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (1997) 6 SCC 241 . 9. 9. Upon consideration of the aforesaid facts, it appears that such complaints of petitioner shown to be forwarded through authorities such as West Bengal Commission for Women, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, Ministry of Home Affairs vide Annexure 16, 17 and 18, has not been enquired by the respondent organization on the allegation of sexual harassment upon the petitioner for the incidence which happened on 20.9.2010 through the procedure conceived under Rule 36 (2A) of CISF. Rules. Fairness in exercise of administrative action is one of the facet of principle of natural justice. Whether the incidence of 20th September, 2010 was solely at the instance of the petitioner and was not as a result of any provocation made by certain person in the organization against whom the petitioner has complained, should also have been inquired into by the respondent-CISF, so as to have a fair inquiry into the entire episode to reach to objective conclusion. 10. This Court, therefore, feels that interest of justice would be served, if at this stage also the Respondent-CISF is directed to hold an inquiry in terms of the relevant procedure prescribed under CISF Rules in respect of complaint of the petitioner through the specified committee. Let such inquiry be concluded within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Since the incidence relates to the office of CISF at Netajee Subhash Chandra Bosh Airport, Kolkata, the inquiry be conducted at Kolkata by the competent authority/Committee. Petitioner is reported to be living at Aasansol. She shall cooperate in the inquiry and produce all relevant materials in her support before the said committee. If the petitioner fails to cooperate, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed ex parte. The committee would look into the relevant material evidence related to incidence including the statement of personnel/other persons, who may be material witnesses to the whole incidence. Since the petitioner is out of service, the respondent-CISF would provide her the traveling allowance and daily allowance for attending the proceeding of committee on the date specified on each day of the proceedings she attends. The respondent no. 2, The Director General, CISF, Lodhi Road, New Delhi shall issue necessary direction in that regard to the competent authority for conduct of the said proceeding. The respondent no. 2, The Director General, CISF, Lodhi Road, New Delhi shall issue necessary direction in that regard to the competent authority for conduct of the said proceeding. Petitioner shall produce the copy of order before Director General, CISF along with her representation duly indicating the place of her residence, postal address, E-Mail, Phone number, for any communication to be made to her within a period of two weeks. Learned ASGI would also communicate the order to Director General, CISF, Respondent no. 2. Let a copy of the order be handed over to the learned ASGI. 11. The respondents shall file an affidavit bringing on record the proceeding of the inquiry as well as its out come. 12. Let the case appear after 12 weeks i.e. on 6th November, 2015.