ORDER : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to filing of the complaint made by the petitioner under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short the 'Act of 2013'). The Internal Complaint Committee rejected the complaint vide its order dated 13.1.2015. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint taken up by the Committee was not submitted by the petitioner and even it was undated. It was a manipulated complaint made to the Committee. The petitioner was yet served with the notice and reply was given to it on 2.9.2014. She made allegation/complaint for the first time in the reply. The Committee has addressed the undated complaint not made by the petitioner and thereby the finding of the Committee deserves to be set aside. It is also stated that the procedure on a complaint has been flouted, thereby, finding of the Committee suffers from non-application of procedure. In view of the above also, order of the Committee dated 13.1.2015 deserves to be set aside. 3. It is stated that series of incidents took place regarding sexual harassment. The petitioner had approached to the police for lodging an FIR and, ultimately, sought leave due to incidents. All those facts have not been noticed by the Committee in the order. The required procedure has not been applied thus the matter may be sent back to the Committee for afresh decision after applying the procedure given under the Act of 2013. 4. It is also stated that complaint for the first time was submitted alongwith the reply to the notice of undated complaint. The reply could have been taken for consideration. The learned Committee has failed to consider it while recording its finding thus for the aforesaid reason also, the impugned order of the Committee deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not raised any other argument. 5. We have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. It is a case where pursuant to a complaint, petitioner was served with the notice for providing opportunity of hearing. It was treating it to be her complaint thus action was taken in consonance of the provisions of the Act of 2013. 5. We have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. It is a case where pursuant to a complaint, petitioner was served with the notice for providing opportunity of hearing. It was treating it to be her complaint thus action was taken in consonance of the provisions of the Act of 2013. The petitioner submitted reply pursuant to the notice though, now, it is stated that no complaint was made by the petitioner on which notice could have been issued. It is, rather, undated complainant. If the petitioner did not make a complaint then the question to follow the procedure and passing an order does not arise. The enquiry under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 is required only when a complaint is made. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that complaint was submitted by her in the shape of the reply. If the aforesaid argument is taken into consideration, so called complaint in the form of reply was beyond the limitation under Section 9 of the Act of 2013. For ready reference, Section 9 of the Act of 2013 is quoted hereunder : "9. Complaint of sexual harassment.- (1) Any aggrieved woman may make, in writing, a complaint of sexual harassment at workplace to the Internal Committee if so constituted, or the Local Committee, in case it is not so constituted, within a period of three months from the date of incident and in case of a series of incidents, within a period of three months from the date of last incident: Provided that where such complaint cannot be made in writing, the Presiding Officer or any Member of the Internal Committee or the Chairperson or any Member of the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the woman for making the complaint in writing: Provided further that the Internal Committee or, as the case may be, the Local Committee may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the time limit not exceeding three months, if it is satisfied that the circumstances were such which prevented the woman from filing a complaint within the said period. (2) Where the aggrieved woman is unable to make a complaint on account of her physical or mental incapacity or death or otherwise, her legal heir or such other person as may be prescribed may make a complaint under this section." 8. Section 9 of the Act of 2013 provides that any aggrieved woman may make a complaint to the Committee within a period of three months from the date of last incident. 9. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act of 2013 further provides that if the aggrieved woman is unable to make a complaint on account of her physical or mental incapacity or death or otherwise, her legal heir or such other person, as may be prescribed can make a complaint. It has not been stated that the petitioner was unable to make a complaint on account of her physical and mental incapacity or otherwise rather no such fact exists on record. Thus, even if the best possible case for the petitioner is taken into consideration, the complaint through a reply was beyond the period of limitation. To ascertain the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner was specifically asked about the date of incident. It was stated that incident took place from time to time on different dates. This Court asked about last incident. It is stated to be in the month of February, 2013. If that is so, the so called complaint in the form of reply in the month of September 2014 is beyond the period of limitation under Section 9 of the Act of 2013. Thus, firstly; reply could not have been treated to be complaint and secondly; if it is taken to be a complaint then it was beyond the period of limitation without a request to treat it under Sub-section (2) of Section 9. 10. In view of the above, the only argument raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted for grant of prayer when according to the petitioner no complaint was made by her on which notice was given. It is otherwise seen that the Committee consist of Judges meticulously examined the matter with detail finding on each issue. The relevant part of the order is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "It is evident from above that her first complaint about sexual harassment was made on 28.02.2013. It is otherwise seen that the Committee consist of Judges meticulously examined the matter with detail finding on each issue. The relevant part of the order is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "It is evident from above that her first complaint about sexual harassment was made on 28.02.2013. In the complainant received by the High Court on 16.01.2014, the allegations are somewhat different. In the complaint before the Committee, allegations have been alleged even against the son of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta. Thereafter, the description of the said sexual harassment have turned more explicit in her written submissions. Thus, there has been an improvement in the allegation at every stage. The committee is conscious of the fact that no lady much less a lady Judicial Officer will make an allegation of such a nature, especially when she is on probation. However, certain events and facts relevant to the present case as under cannot be ignored and are required to be noted for arriving at a just conclusion. During her tenure in service and that also of short duration from 12.02.2011 to 05.12.2013, the complainant had grievance against almost all her staff members. Even in her written submissions and her response to the reply filed by Shri Anil Kumar Guta, Ms. Geeta Meena sounds annoyed not only with Shri Anil Kumar Gupta but also with almost all her staff members. The complainant even suspects that her accident was manipulated by one Shri Ram Avtar Gupta, Advocate. At one point of time, it is alleged by her that Shri Abdul Wazid Chisti, Stenographer left his computer running which resulted in one Amar Pal Singh, ASI seeing the confidential letter and further suspected that Shri Abdul Wazid Chisti was talking about eh confidential letter on his mobile. Ms. Geeta Meena is even upset with her peon Dharam Pal who allegedly did not serve her with water which was his duty. The Judicial Employees Association made a joint complaint against Ms. Geeta Meena to Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, the then District & Session Judge, Jhalawar that they were living under constant thereat of their ACRs being spoiled and while in Court and Chamber, Ms. Geeta Meena regularly quarrelled with Bar Members, Assistant Public Prosecutor, Assistant Nazir and used to unnecessary make staff members. In fact, they all sought transfer from her Court for fear of their career being harmed on account of her temperament. Geeta Meena regularly quarrelled with Bar Members, Assistant Public Prosecutor, Assistant Nazir and used to unnecessary make staff members. In fact, they all sought transfer from her Court for fear of their career being harmed on account of her temperament. The language used by Ms. Geeta Meena in the ACRs of almost all her staff members speaks volume of her suspicious nature and the fact that she does not mince her words while making wild allegations. The language in all these ACRs in almost similar with a change4 of word here and there. ACRs of S/Shri Banwari Lal, Reader, Dharmendra Singh Rajawat, LDC, Abdul Salam, LDC, Pradeep Singh, LDC, Trilok Chank Pareta, LDC, Jagdish Chand Koli, LDC, Abdul Wazid Chisti, Stenographer, Mohd. The language in all these ACRs in almost similar with a change4 of word here and there. ACRs of S/Shri Banwari Lal, Reader, Dharmendra Singh Rajawat, LDC, Abdul Salam, LDC, Pradeep Singh, LDC, Trilok Chank Pareta, LDC, Jagdish Chand Koli, LDC, Abdul Wazid Chisti, Stenographer, Mohd. Annes, LDC placed on record along with the reply filed by Shri Anil Kumar Gupta read thus:- cuokjh yky jhM+j vf/kdkjh ds dk;ksZ dk lexz ewY;akdu% vuSfrd] vkRefo'okl dh deh] gM+HkM+kgV esa dk;Z djuk] drZO; lsfo ds O;fDrRo nks"kA dzks/kh] Hkzfer] vagdkjh] >wBk] Ny diV izo`fr ds ekufld nks"k] ifjJe ls cpus dh izo`fr o dk;Z vfr /kheh xfr ls djuk dk;Z ds izfr fu"Bjk lansgkRed o vlg;ksxiw.kZ O;ogkj] funsZ'ku dh vogsyuk] vuq'kklughurkA /kesZUnz flag jktkor d0 fy0 vf/kdkjh ds dk;ksZ dk lexz ewY;akdu% vuSfrd] vlR; cksyuk] csbZeku] Ny&diV] ifjJe esa deh] dk;Z ds izfr vfu"Bkoku] dk;ZO;ogkj lansgkRed] funsZ'ku dh vogsyuk] dzwj o nq"V izo`fr balku] vuq'kklughuA vCnqy lyke d0 fy0 vf/kdkjh ds dk;ksZ dk lexz ewY;akdu vuSfrd] vgadkjh] dzks/kh] Ny&diV izo`fr] >wBk] drZO; ds izfr fu"d`"V] dk;Z esa VkyeVksy] vlEekuh; o xfjekghu O;ogkj] Hkko&Hkaxhek o oL= lgh u gksuk] fegyk vf/kdkjh ds le{k mifLFkfr vuqfpr o xfjekiw.kZ ugha jgh gSA vlg;ksxiw.kZ O;ogkj o funsZ'ku dh vogsyuk] vuq'kklughuA iznhi flag d0 fy0 vf/kdkjh ds dk;ksZ dk lexz ewY;akdu >wBk] dzks/kh] vuSfrd] ?ke.M+h bR;kfn O;fDrRo nks"k o ekufld nks"kA dk;Z ds izfr v:fp o dk;Z esa funsZ'ku dh vogsyuk] deZ ds izfr vfu"Bkoku mnkgj.kkFkZ% xokg dks vkokt nsus ls iwoZ lwph ckn rkehy xokg ds funsZ'ku ds ckotwn :Vhu esa rS;kj u djuk] vuq'kklughuA f=yksd pUn ikjsrk d0fy0 vf/kdkjh ds dk;ksZ dk lexz ewY;akdu vuSfrd] dzks/kh] tYnckth esa dke djuk] Ny dIV izo`fr ds O;fDrRo o ekufld nks"kA ifjJe djus ls cpus dh ekufldrk o dke ds izfr vfu"Bkoku o {kfriw.kZ lg;ksxh] v;ksX;] vuqHkoghu] vuq'kklughu] lR;fu"Bk iw.kZ lansgkRedA txnh'k pUn dksyh d0fy0 vf/kdkjh ds dk;ksZ dk lexz ewY;akdu% vuSfrd] csbZeku] >wBk] drZO; foeq<+] vfo'oluh; ds O;fDrRo nks"k o gM+HkM+kgV o tYnckth esa dke djuk] Ny diV izo`fr ds ekufld fodkj] ifjJe de djuk fn[kk;k T;knk] xyfr;ka nksgjkuk] drZO; ds izfr vfu"Bkoku] vuq'kklughuA vCnqy okftn fp'rh vk'kqfyfid vf/kdkjh ds dk;ksZ dk lexz ewY;kadu vuSfrd] vfo'luh;] lR;fu"Bk iw.kZ lansgkRed ds O;fDrRo nks"kA egkdzks/kh] egkvagdkjh] Ny&diV izo`fr] tYn ckth esa dk;Z djuk ds ekufld nks"kA dk;Z esa vlg;ksxh] lnkgj.k i=kpkj Lo;a rS;kj djus esa v{ke] u;s vf/kdkjh gks xqejkg djuk] efgyk vf/kdkjh ds izfr vlEekuh; o nqO;Zogkj dk nqjkpj.k] vuq'kklughu] funsZ'ku dh vogsyuk djuk] xyrh crkus ij Lohdkj o lq/kkjus ds ctk; VkWLQj ds fy, vf/kdkjh dks vkns'k nsuk dk nqjkpj.kA eksgEen vuhl d0fy0 vf/kdkjh ds dk;ksZ dk lexz ewY;akdu vuSfrd] dzks/kh] vgadkjh] vuq'kklughu] tYnckth esa =qfViw.kZ dke djuk] funsZ'ku dh vogsyuk] Ny&diV izo`fr] xfjekghu Hkko Hkafxek ds O;fDrRo o ekufld nks"kA dk;Z djus ls cpus dh izo`fr] dk;Z o drZO; ds izfr vfu"Bkoku] vkylh vuq'kklughuA It is apparent that no staff member escaped her accusations. Not even for a moment are we holding a brief for any one of them but it is obvious that all were painted with the same negative brush. Further, the very incident of 28.02.2013, which appears to be the basis of the entire controversy was enquired into by the District & Sessions Judge Baran having been appointed as the Enquiry Officer by an order dated 01.03.2013 passed by Hon'ble the then Chief Justice. The Enquiry Officer too concluded the report with following observations:- vr% izkjfEHkd tkap ds nkSjku ,df=r dh xbZ lk{; ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gwa fd izkjfEHkd tkap ds nkSjku ftu lkf{k;ksa ds dFku ys[kc) fd;s x;s mu lkf{k;ksa ds dFku ls ;g rF; izdV gksrk gS fd fnuakd 28-02-2013 dks tc ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k >kykokM+ vfuy dqekj xqIrk U;k;ky; ,0M+h0ts0 vdysjk dk dSEi dksVZ djus ds fy, vdysjk vk;s gq, Fks rks ml le; ,0M+h0ts0 vdysjk ds pSEcj esa U;k;ky; U;kf;d eft0 vdysjk dk LVkWQ ftyk U;k;/kh'k ls feyus vk;k vkSj ihBklhu vf/kdkjh lqJh xhrk eh.kk dh f'kdk;r djrs gq, viuk LFkkukUrj.k ml U;k;ky; ls vU;= djus dh izkFkZuk dj jgk Fkk ml le; lqJh xhrk eh.kk Hkh ftyk U;k;k/kh'k ds ikl pSEcj esa vk xbZA tc ftyk U;k;k/kh'k us lqJh xhrk eh.kk ls iwNk fd LVkWQ vkils D;ksa ukjkt gS rks bl ij lqJh xhrk eh.kk mRrsftr gks xbZ vkSj ftyk U;k;k/kh'k >kkykokM+ ij vkjksi yxk;k fd og rks ,d rjQk dk;Zokgh dj jgs gSA tc ftyk U;k;k/kh'k us lqjh xhrk eh.kk ls mPp Loj esa ckr ugh djus ds fy, dgk rks lqJh xhrk eh.kk us ftyk U;k;k/kh'k ls Hkh dgk fd mUgsa izkscs'kuj vf/kdkjh dks liksVZ djuk pkfg,A tc ftyk U;k;k/kh'k us lqJh xhrk eh.kk ls tkus ds fy, dgk rks lqJh xhrk eh.kk rsth ls iSj iVdrs gq, xqLls ls ogka ls pyh xbZA In her complaint, she has specifically alleged that Shri Anil Kumar Gupta had made telephone calls and gave missed calls. She has attached a number of documents running into 261 pages but not even a single document or a copy of the call details which can easily be obtained from the service provider has been placed on record to prove the same. Ms. She has attached a number of documents running into 261 pages but not even a single document or a copy of the call details which can easily be obtained from the service provider has been placed on record to prove the same. Ms. Geeta Meena in her written submission and rejoinder has highlighted her grievance that she was made to stay late on the intervening night of 13th October, 2012 and 14th October, 2012 when the Inspecting Judge visited Courts at Aklera. We find merit in the submission on Shri Gupta that she had to stay back late on 13.10.2012 because of her own compulsion as she had to return back in the car of ACJM, Aklera. The same had nothing to do with Shri Anil Kumar Gupta. Last but not the least, the present Committee was constituted on receipt of an undated complaint received by this office on 16.01.2014. Interestingly, the complainant Ms. Geeta Meena has denied that she ever wrote this complaint and has stated in her rejoinder to the reply of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta that the same is fabricated and false. If that is so, it is not understood as to why she has supported the same in her written submissions and her response by giving a more detail explicit account of the sexual harassment which she could neither prove nor establish. Surprisingly, even for this undated complaint received by this office on 16.01.2014, Shri Anil Kumar Gupta has been blamed for fabricating and dispatching it to the High Court, which further point out that the allegations have been made recklessly without realising that why would Shri Anil Kumar Gupta make a complaint against himself. On 02.09.2014, Ms. Geeta Meena appeared before this Committee in person. She was heard in detail Ms. Geeta Meena did not sound convincing. All the Committee members were sorry to notice that either Ms. Geeta Meena was imagining too much or totally misconstruing every word and action, if any. In view of the above discussion, this Committee is of the opinion that the said allegations are nothing but a figment of her imagination and made to cover up her own shortcomings in the performance of her work and conduct at the work place which were being specifically pointed out by Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, now and then, in his capacity as District Judge which was neither liked nor tolerated by her. On account of her performance, conduct and complaints against Ms. Geeta Meena, Shri Anil Kumar Gupta had no choice but to submit his complaint dated 28.02.2013 to the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and this invited her wrath and anger which culminated into a complaint dated 28.02.2013 and all subsequent complaints against Shri Anil Kumar Gupta. The events and facts of the present case as narrated above have forced us to conclude that the allegations against Shri Anil Kumar Gupta wee infact made to use the same as a last weapon of defence against her own insufficiency and unsatisfactory performance at work. We are further constrained to observe that Ms. Geeta Meena, on account of her suspicious nature, suspected almost each and every person who came in contact with her and had no hesitation in making allegations at the drop of a hat. Thus, we find no truth in the allegation of sexual harassment as alleged by Ms. Geeta Meena in the complaint. Therefore, we recommend that the same be filed. 11. No challenge to the finding recorded by the Committee has been made. 12. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to accept the prayer made in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.