JUDGMENT : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY Learned counsels for the parties are present. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner never made any complaint in the Committee Against Sexual Harassment (CASH). Only a complaint was lodged with the police and a copy of the same was forwarded to the Director who suo-moto referred the matter to CASH. The learned counsel has also referred to page no. 13 of I.A. No. 5183 of 2023 which is a letter dated 30.07.2014 and submits that it has been specifically mentioned therein that although no written or verbal complaint has been given by the petitioner regarding sexual harassment by the private respondent to the Administration Department, but several newspapers had reported that the complaint was filed by the petitioner against the private respondent in Kotwali Police Station. Because of the same, a recommendation was made to the sexual harassment committee of IIM Ranchi to investigate the matter and give its report to the Director, IIM Ranchi at the earliest. 3. Learned counsel further submits that when notices were issued by CASH, the petitioner had strongly objected to the constitution of the Committee in as much as she alleged that two members of the Committee had overheard the altercation between the petitioner and the private respondent. The learned counsel has referred to page no. 26 of the said interlocutory application whereby the objection was raised. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the said letter the petitioner had also stated that she was forced to state although she never wanted to do so because she had already objected to the constitution of the CASH Committee. 4. The learned counsel further submits that the CASH Committee recorded in the report that the petitioner could not substantiate the allegation made against the private respondent and also that the allegation was incorrect but the same by itself would not have called for any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner in as much as an inquiry in terms of section 14 of the Sexual Harassment of the Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act 2013 was required to be done. He has submitted that as per the 1st proviso of section 14(1), it has been made clear that mere inability to substantiate a complaint or provide adequate proof need not attract action against the complainant under section 14 for it. He has submitted that as per the 1st proviso of section 14(1), it has been made clear that mere inability to substantiate a complaint or provide adequate proof need not attract action against the complainant under section 14 for it. The learned counsel also submits that to proceed under section 14, the second proviso to section 14 (1) provides further that malicious intent on the part of the complainant shall be established after an inquiry by the procedure prescribed before any action is recommended. The learned counsel submits that no exercise in terms of the second proviso to section 14 has been undertaken. This is apparent from the fact that the CASH report itself had recommended action against the petitioner. The learned counsel has submitted that the inquiry in terms of the second proviso is a condition precedent for taking any action against the complainant to find out if the complaint was malicious or the complainant knew it to be false or the aggrieved woman or any person making the complaint had produced any forged or misleading document. The learned counsel has submitted that it was a simple case where the petitioner could not substantiate her allegation against the private respondent and accordingly, the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner is vitiated and is void ab initio. He has reiterated that the proceeding is contrary to the procedure prescribed under section 9 as well as the procedure prescribed under section 14. This is over and above the fact that an allegation of bias was made against the committee constituted under CASH. The learned counsel has raised the following grounds for consideration: - “1. That having regard to the fact that the petitioner had not made any complaint in terms of section 9(1) of the Act of 2013 to the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, the finding returned by the CASH regarding the falsity of the complaint to the Director, IIM, Ranchi could not be the basis of initiation of proceeding in exercise of powers under section 14 of the Act of 2013 and hence the entire proceeding and the impugned order are without jurisdiction. 2. That the filing of the final form by the Police and consequent acceptance by the Ld. 2. That the filing of the final form by the Police and consequent acceptance by the Ld. Trial Court were not relevant factors for consideration and more so in view of the subsequent developments which have taken place during the pendency of the writ petition viz. passing of order dated 13.09.2019 in Cr. Rev. No. 583 of 2016 by this Hon’ble Court setting aside the order dated 29.11.2014 passed by the Ld. CJM, Ranchi whereby the Final Form was accepted. 3. That the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in an unfair and biased manner and the authorities had already reached to the conclusion of the petitioner’s guilt at the time of issuing the show cause notice dated 08.01.2016. 4. That the constitution of CASH was illegal and in contravention of the provisions of section 7 of the Act of 2013. 5. That the imposition of punishment of removal from service is harsh and grossly disproportionate to the charges. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that show cause itself referred to the filing of the criminal case which had no bearing in the matter of disciplinary proceeding. The learned counsel has also referred to the show cause to submit that the show cause itself was issued with the pre-determined mind. 6. The records of the case indicate that the notices issued to the private respondent were validly served but nobody has entered an appearance on behalf of the private respondent. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the other respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the scope of interference in the matter of disciplinary inquiry is very limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has also submitted that the required procedure has also been followed in the present case therefore there is no procedural lapse. The learned counsel while replying to the points raised by the petitioner in connection with section 9 has submitted that the petitioner had appeared before the Sexual Harassment Committee. Once the Director received the complaint made by the petitioner before the police, it was incumbent upon the Director to refer the matter before the Sexual Harassment Committee which was duly done and thereafter the notice was issued to the petitioner. Once the Director received the complaint made by the petitioner before the police, it was incumbent upon the Director to refer the matter before the Sexual Harassment Committee which was duly done and thereafter the notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had appeared and got her statement recorded and thereafter she had stated that she would cooperate with the proceeding but she has objections about the constitution of the Committee. To address such grievance of the petitioner, the Committee had ensured that the entire proceeding is recorded through Video and the same having been done, the petitioner cannot have any grievance about the allegation that the Committee was biased. 8. The learned counsel has also submitted that the internal Committee is a permanent committee and merely because one or the other person had heard the altercation, the same does not call for reconstitution of committee and merely one or the other persons had overheard the altercation the same cannot be a ground to say that the Committee was biased. However, it is not in dispute that no verbal or written complaint was made by the writ petitioner before the Sexual Harassment Committee. 9. About section 14, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the necessary inquiry was already done by the CASH. The learned counsel has submitted that the CASH in its report held that the allegation against the private respondent was not substantiated and was incorrect has also made a recommendation for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner in terms of the service rules and there is no violation of section 14 of the aforesaid Act of 2013. The learned counsel has also submitted that the CASH Committee report should be read as a whole and the incorrect allegation was actuated with malice therefore there is no procedural irregularity in the matter and the case does not call for any interference. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is no jurisdictional error in the entire proceeding and also in the final order which is impugned in the present proceeding. 10. Arguments concluded. 11. Post this case for pronouncement of judgment on 30.01.2024.