JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Since both the petitions have arisen from common cause of action and in both the cases, parties are same, these matters were heard together and are now being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. Precisely the facts as emerge from the record are that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Extension Specialist (Agroforestery/Forestry) at KVK, CSKHPKV Kukumseri on 7.4.2006. Thereafter, he served at KVK Kangra, from where he was transferred to KVK Hamirpur at Bara on 9.9.2019/29.6.2010 with additional work of Programme Coordinator. At KVK, Hamirpur at Bara, respondent No.3 was also working as a Farm Manager. Petitioner after having found certain discrepancies in the stock register and crop register maintained by respondent No.3 called for clarification from her, but in vain. On 14.11.2019, one Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Farm Manager, took over the charge of vegetable/nursery from respondent No.3. Since aforesaid officer found certain discrepancies, he wrote letter to the petitioner showing the discrepancies in the stock register and crop register. Petitioner submitted show cause notice to respondent No.3 qua the discrepancies pointed out by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Farm Manager, however respondent No.3 instead of replying to the aforesaid show cause notice, filed complaint of sexual harassment at work place against the petitioner that too after 20 days of the incident. Petitioner though filed detailed reply on 8.9.2020, thereby denying all the allegations leveled against him by respondent No.3, but respondent No.1 having taken note of the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner constituted Internal Complaint Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short “the Sexual Harassment Act” ), headed by Ms. Vedna Kumari and other members. Internal Complaint Committee after having investigated the matter submitted inquiry report (P-6) vide communication dated 20.1.2021, which reads as under: “Findings of the Committee: As per the allegations leveled by the complainant, Mrs. Rekha Dogra, the committee could establish only one allegation that Dr. Parveen Sharma had visited her residence during odd/off hours on 29.7.2020 as the same has been confessed by the respondent, Dr. Parveen Sharma as well in his written statement. However, Mrs Rekha Dogra could not provide any evidence/witness for her allegation that Dr. Parveen Sharma also made inappropriate physical contact (patting) to her in her residence at that moment. The two witnesses, Sh. Moti Ram and Sh. Parveen Sharma as well in his written statement. However, Mrs Rekha Dogra could not provide any evidence/witness for her allegation that Dr. Parveen Sharma also made inappropriate physical contact (patting) to her in her residence at that moment. The two witnesses, Sh. Moti Ram and Sh. Desh Raj also could not corroborate her allegation in their written statements. Mrs. Rekha Dogra could not produce the conversation details of phone calls dated 29.7.2020 to substantiate her allegations. As per the allegations leveled by Mrs. Rekha Dogra that Sh. Moti Ram had come inside the official room of Dr. Parveen Sharma on 29.7.2020 at about 5.00 PM when she was already present there. But, SMoti Ram denied her allegation that he had entered to the official room of Dr. Parveen Sharma at that moment. He further informed the committee that both Dr. Parveen Sharma and Mrs. Rekha Dogra were present in their respective official rooms. The allegation of demanding some sort of favours by Dr Parveen Sharma from Mrs. Rekha Dogra on 24.7. 2020 could not be established as he was out of station on official work at CSK HPKKV, Palampur on that day.” 3. On the basis of aforesaid findings, Committee made following recommendations: “Recommendations of the committee: 1. Since the discrepancies have been reported by Dr. Parveen Sharma in the stock registers handled by Mrs. Rekha Dogra, a proper enquiry is suggested to find out the facts. 2. Since Dr. Parveen Sharma has refused to make a written apology to Mrs. Rekha Dogra in the matter that he had visited her residence during odd/off hours on 29.7.2020 evening, necessary action may be initiated against him in accordance with the service rules of the university. 3. The committee had earlier recommended the transfer of Dr. Parveen Sharma from KVK Bara to any other station till the enquiry is completed. Now, the committee recommends that Dr. Parveen Sharma may not be assigned the duties of HOD/ Station Incharge for at least for a term as he has not been able to discharge his duties by following proper official procedures. In addition, both the complainant and the respondent must not be placed together in the same station.” 4. Now, the committee recommends that Dr. Parveen Sharma may not be assigned the duties of HOD/ Station Incharge for at least for a term as he has not been able to discharge his duties by following proper official procedures. In addition, both the complainant and the respondent must not be placed together in the same station.” 4. Though no truth was found in the allegations leveled by respondent No.3 save and except that petitioner had visited her residence during odd hours on 29.7.2020, but since he failed to make written apology to respondent No.3, Internal Complaint Committee recommended necessary action against the petitioner in accordance with the service rules of the university. Vide memorandum/article of charge dated 15.3.2021, appointing authority i.e. Registrar University framed following article of charge: “Statement of Articles of charge framed against Dr. Parveen Kumar Sharma, Programme Coordinator, KVK, Hamirpur at Bara presently working at KVK, Una as SMS (Agroforestry). ARTICLE-I That Dr. Parveen Kumar Sharma while functioning as Programme Coordinator, KVK, Hamirpur at Bara came at the residence of Mrs. Rekha Devi, Farm Manager, KVK, Hamirpur at Bara about 6.00 PM on 29.7.2020 in the office bike and called her from outside in loud voice and asked her to come down where he was standing. He threatened her and asked her to promise that she will oblige him in lieu of the adjustment of her pending advances in the Audit at CSKHPKV, Palampur. As per Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace, Act, 2013, dwelling places also comes under the definition of workplaces. Thus the said Dr. Parveen Kumar Sharma indulged himself in sexual harassment of Mrs. Rekha Devi. This act of omission and commission on the part of the said Dr. Parveen Kumar Sharma is highly unbecoming of an employee of the University and amounts to gross misconduct and a flagrant violation the provisions of Statute 8.1(1)(a), (b), (c), 8.1(2) and 8.1.(3) of the Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Statutes, 1988 read with Rule 3-C of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 5. Parveen Kumar Sharma is highly unbecoming of an employee of the University and amounts to gross misconduct and a flagrant violation the provisions of Statute 8.1(1)(a), (b), (c), 8.1(2) and 8.1.(3) of the Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Statutes, 1988 read with Rule 3-C of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 5. Being aggrieved of initiation of afore disciplinary proceedings under the CCS Pension Rules, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main relief : “i. that kindly issue appropriate writs, or orders, or directions to quash the memorandum/article of charges (Annexure P-9) by declaring the recommendations no.2 made by respondent no 2 (ICC) in its report dated 20.01.2021 (Annexure P-6) ultra-virus or against the provisions of the law vide which the recommendation for disciplinary proceedings against present petitioner was made. That kindly issue appropriate writs, orders, or directions to pay the compensation/damages to the petitioner in view of the fact that complaint of sexual harassment was proved to be false and malicious. That kindly issue appropriate writs, orders, or directions to respondent No.1 to take necessary action against respondent No.3 on account of her filing false and malicious complaint of sexual harassment against petitioner.” 6. Vide order dated 24.7.2021, Division Bench of this Court restrained the respondents from conducting inquiry on the basis of article of charges. After admission of the matter, case has fallen for adjudication by this Court. 7. Precisely, grouse of the petitioner, as been highlighted in the petition and has been further canvassed by Mr. Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that once Internal Complaint Committee found no substance/truth in the allegation of sexual harassment made by respondent No.3, there was no occasion for initiation of disciplinary proceedings under the service rules against the petitioner, who otherwise stands exonerated. 8. While inviting attention of this Court to the finding of the Committee, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that though petitioner admitted factum with regard to his having visited the residence of respondent No.3 during odd hours, but respondent No.3 failed to prove that petitioner during his visit to her house in odd hours made an inappropriate physical contact. He further submitted that two witnesses namely Moti Ram and Desh Raj also failed to corroborate the aforesaid allegation leveled against the petitioner. Lastly, Mr. He further submitted that two witnesses namely Moti Ram and Desh Raj also failed to corroborate the aforesaid allegation leveled against the petitioner. Lastly, Mr. Jeevan Kumar argued that no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be placed on record with regard to telephonic conversation inter-se petitioner and respondent No.3 and as such, disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on the basis of recommendation made by the Committee are not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Ms. Aruna Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the University and Mr. Piar Chand, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.3, vehemently argued that once petitioner himself admitted his having gone to the residence of respondent No.3 in the odd hours, no illegality and infirmity can be said to have been committed by the inquiry committee while recommending the disciplinary proceedings, against the petitioner. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that facts, as have been noticed herein above, are not in dispute, rather stand admitted. There is no denial to the fact that complaint under the Sexual Harassment Act at work place, came to be lodged against the petitioner after issuance of show cause notice to respondent No.3 by the petitioner. Though incident as highlighted in the complaint is of 29.7.2020, but complaint came to be made after 20 days of the alleged incident. Though it has been claimed by respondent No.3 that telephonic complaint was made to Director Extension, but such fact never came to be substantiated during inquiry proceedings before Internal Complaint Committee. Similarly, it is not in dispute that Mr. Dinesh K. Sharma, Farm Manager, after his having taken charge of vegetables/nursery from respondent No.3, intimated the petitioner with regard to certain discrepancies in stock Register and crop register and thereafter, petitioner served respondent No.3 with show cause notice. 11. Petitioner by way of detailed reply strongly refuted the allegations made in the complaint, but yet respondent No.1 constituted Internal Complaint Committee under the Harassment Act. Internal Complaint Committee after having recorded the statement of the complainant/respondent No.3 and other witnesses and going through the documentary evidence submitted its inquiry report vide communication dated 20.1.2021. If the finding of the aforesaid report are perused in its entirety as have been reproduced herein above, this Court finds force in the submission of Mr. Internal Complaint Committee after having recorded the statement of the complainant/respondent No.3 and other witnesses and going through the documentary evidence submitted its inquiry report vide communication dated 20.1.2021. If the finding of the aforesaid report are perused in its entirety as have been reproduced herein above, this Court finds force in the submission of Mr. Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that no allegation with regard to sexual harassment ever came to be proved against the petitioner and as such, there was no occasion for the Committee to recommend the disciplinary action against the petitioner. Inquiry committee in its finding though returned finding that Committee could only establish one allegation that the petitioner had visited her residence during hours on 29.7.2020 as the same has been confessed by the petitioner, but witnesses namely Moti Ram and Desh Raj also could not corroborate her allegation in their written statements. Mere visiting of the house of the complainant by the petitioner during odd hours may not be sufficient to conclude the sexual assault, if any, committed by the petitioner, rather to prove such allegation, it was incumbent upon the complainant to prove that during his visit to her house, petitioner behaved indecently and made an attempt to touch her inappropriately, but such evidence never came to be led on record. Similarly, finding of the Committee clearly reveals that respondent No.3 was unable to provide any record with regard to telephonic conversation of the petitioner and respondent No.3 on 29.7.2020. Respondent No.3 alleged that Sh. Moti Ram had come inside the official room of the petitioner on 29.7.2020 at 5;00 pm, when she was already present, however, Moti Ram denied the allegation that he had entered the official room of the petitioner at that moment. 12. Committee after having perused entire record has returned finding that allegation of some sort of favours by the petitioner from respondent No.3 on 24.7.2020, could not be established as he was out of state for official work at CSK HPKKV, Palampur on that day. 13. Interestingly, despite there being aforesaid clear cut finding exonerating the petitioner of the allegation leveled against him under the sexual harassment, Internal Complaint Committee recommended the disciplinary action against the petitioner. 13. Interestingly, despite there being aforesaid clear cut finding exonerating the petitioner of the allegation leveled against him under the sexual harassment, Internal Complaint Committee recommended the disciplinary action against the petitioner. Though Committee also recommended action against the complainant on account of having discrepancies having been pointed by the petitioner in the stock register and crop register, but since petitioner failed to tender written apology to respondent No.3 in the matter that he had visited her residents during odd hours, the committee recommended the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under service rules of the university. Committee had earlier recommended the transfer of the petitioner from KVK Bara to any other station till the enquiry is completed, but recommended that petitioner may not be assigned the duties of HOD/Station Incharge at least for a term as he has not been able to discharge his duties by following proper official procedures. 14. Having perused finding of Internal Complaint Committee juxtaposing recommendation of the committee, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Ms. Aruna Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent-University that disciplinary proceedings have been rightly initiated against the petitioner for his having committed act of sexual harassment. Once allegation of sexual assault never came to be proved, mere omission, if any, on the part of the petitioner to render written apology to respondent No.3 may not be reason to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Neither there is any oral evidence, nor documentary suggestive of the fact that petitioner behaved indecently and tried to inappropriately touch her during his visit to her house on odd hours and as such, there is/was no occasion for him to tender apology. 15. At the cost of repetition, mere visit of the petitioner during odd hours to the residence of respondent No.3 may not be sufficient to conclude guilt, if any, of the petitioner because this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that both the petitioner and respondent No.3 are collogues and had been working with each other for quite long and there is nothing abnormal if one collogue visits the house of other. Otherwise also, when allegation of sexual harassment never came to be proved, it is not understood that where was the occasion for the petitioner to tender apology to respondent No.3 rather after having perused entire material available on record, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Otherwise also, when allegation of sexual harassment never came to be proved, it is not understood that where was the occasion for the petitioner to tender apology to respondent No.3 rather after having perused entire material available on record, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 after having received show cause notice served under the signature of the petitioner, filed false complaint of sexual harassment against him. Since petitioner stood exonerated in the inquiry conducted by Internal Complaint Committee, there was no reason for Internal Complaint Committee to recommend disciplinary action against the petitioner. Similarly, Disciplinary Authority before initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner ought to have perused the entire inquiry report, to see justification, if any, of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. It appears that Disciplinary Authority in mechanical manner after having perused the recommendation of the Committee proceeded to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 16. True it is that Internal Complaint Committee after having conducted enquiry is competent to recommend the disciplinary action, but for that purpose, allegation leveled against the officer/official must have been proved during inquiry, however in the instant case, no allegation leveled by respondent No.3 in complaint ever came to be proved in accordance with law. 17. In view of the above, this court finds no reason for continuance of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner that too on the recommendations made by Internal Complaint Committee and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set aside. Since no allegation of sexual harassment ever came to be proved against the petitioner, there was no occasion for the committee to recommend the transfer of the petitioner from KVK Bara to any other station and as such, transfer, if any, pursuant to aforesaid recommendation also requires to be quashed and set-aside. 18. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, present petitions are allowed and memorandum/article of charges (Annexure P-9) declaring the recommendations made by Internal Complaint Committee in its report dated 20.1.2021 (Annexure P-6) are quashed and set-aside and respondents are directed to post the petitioner at KVK Bara Hamirpur. In the aforesaid terms, present petitions are disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.