JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.04.2023 whereby the modification application filed in Writ-A No.4878 of 2021 has been allowed, clarifying the order dated 24.09.2021 for disposal of the said writ petition that the said order would not stand against the petitioner, inasmuch as, the penalty which has been awarded to the writ petitioner/applicant had been accepted. It was also held that the respondents/appellants herein while agreeing for amicable settlement leading to passing of the order dated 24.09.2021 had not only misinterpreted the said order, but proceeded to pass a fresh order taking into account the earlier infractions which were given quietus vide order dated 24.09.2021. 2. For the stand taken by the respondents/appellants herein in the counter affidavit in Writ Petition No.4492 of 2023, filed subsequently, it was held that the said stand of the respondents /appellants being contrary to the essence of the order dated 24.09.2021 would amount to contempt. The modification application has been disposed of by clarifying that the essence of the order dated 24.09.2021 was that the petitioner shall not be punished and the order impugned in the said writ petition shall stand wiped out except to the extent that the petitioner would have to suffer the stoppage of three increments and nothing more. 3. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-institution would submit that the learned Single Judge has gone beyond the scope of the application by which the modification of the judgment and order dated 24.09.2021 had been sought. It was argued that the statement in the counter affidavit filed in the subsequent writ petition could only be examined therein and, in no case, the statement made in the counter affidavit filed in subsequent petition could be taken as contempt of the order passed in the previous writ petition, that too based on the averments in the modification application, without even granting time to the appellant to file a reply to the same. 4. 4. The facts of the matter placed before us, in brief, are that Writ Petition No.4878 of 2021 (previous writ petition) was filed with the relief of quashing of the recommendation dated 29.10.2020 of the Internal Committee, Institute of Technology, Kanpur under Section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) (in short, 'the POSH Act, 2013'), as also the order dated 16.02.2021 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act, 2013. Further relief in the writ petition was to quash the entire inquiry report of the Internal Committee. The said writ petition was decided vide judgment and order dated 24.9.2021 after exchange of affidavits of the parties. 5. Amongst various grounds taken in the writ petition, it seems that during the course of argument, the Court had called upon the counsels for the parties to see as to whether any step can be taken for conciliation between the parties to give a quietus to the whole litigation. It is further noted in the judgment and order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of writ petition No.4878 of 2021 that in terms of deliberations which took place during the course of hearing, the respondents/appellants herein had agreed to pass an order of withholding the increment for three years and such an order has already been passed on 13.09.2021. It was further noted that the order imposing the penalty to the extent of stoppage of three increments had been accepted by the writ petitioner only to give quietus to the litigation and not on account of two articles of charges levelled against him, affecting his future prospects in the institute. It was noted by the learned Single Judge that the learned counsel for the petitioner had accepted the order of punishment to give a quietus to the entire litigation and has expressed his apprehension that based upon the said order, no further action can be taken against the writ petitioner. 6. It was noted by the learned Single Judge that the learned counsel for the petitioner had accepted the order of punishment to give a quietus to the entire litigation and has expressed his apprehension that based upon the said order, no further action can be taken against the writ petitioner. 6. The writ petition was, thus, disposed of with the observations as under: "Thus, in view of the fact that the parties have resolved the dispute to accept the penalty imposed in the order dated 13th September, 2021 as the final order in between the parties, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a observation that the petitioner shall be entitled to continue to work and discharge all the duties, which he was discharging prior to the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner. The order passed against the petitioner on 13th September, 2021, imposing the penalty to the extent of stopping of three increments is being accepted by the petitioner only to give quietus to the litigation and not on account of the two articles of charges levelled against him, affecting his future prospects in the Institute. " 7. The result is that the petitioner had been held entitled to continue to work and discharge his duties, on the same position as that before initiation of the proceedings against him. As noted above, the Writ Court has noted that the petitioner had accepted the order dated 13.09.2021 of imposition of penalty, in order to give quietus to the litigation and this order shall not affect his future prospects in the institute. 8. It seems that another complaint of sexual harassment by another student was levelled against the writ petitioner which has resulted in an inquiry under the POSH Act, 2013. 9. On the report submitted by the Internal Committee dated 30.09.2022, the Board of Governors after extensive deliberation in its meeting held on 11.12.2022 of the appellant-institution had accepted the inquiry report and proceeded to issue a memorandum dated 22.12.2022 to the writ petitioner seeking his response on the proposed punishment of compulsory retirement. Another writ petition was filed by the petitioner herein challenging the validity of the inquiry report and the show cause notice dated 22.12.2022 namely Writ Petition No.2273 of 2023, which is pending consideration. Another writ petition was filed by the petitioner herein challenging the validity of the inquiry report and the show cause notice dated 22.12.2022 namely Writ Petition No.2273 of 2023, which is pending consideration. After consideration of the representations/reply to the show cause notice filed by the writ petitioner, the Board has unanimously resolved to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement on the writ petitioner, keeping in view of the inquiry report dated 30.09.2022 as also the past conduct of the writ petitioner, his antecedents. The Writ Petition No.4492 of 2023 came to be filed challenging the penalty of compulsory retirement which was imposed upon the petitioner after completion of the inquiry. 10. Initially, an interim order dated 14.03.2023 was granted therein in favour of the petitioner permitting him to stay in the official accommodation and for some time access to the personal laboratory inside the institution concerned. However, the writ petitioner has been restrained from interfering in administrative affairs of the institute including the arrangement of academics by the administration of the institution. On a special appeal filed by the appellant herein, namely the Special Appeal No.194 of 2023 vide judgment and order dated 10.04.2023, the direction was issued to the writ petitioner to remove all his data and other research material from the laboratory within a period of three days in the presence of Officer deputed by the appellant herein. Time was granted to the appellant to file counter affidavit which was duly filed in the writ petition on 12.04.2023, the rejoinder to the same has also been filed by the writ petitioner on 08.05.2023. 11. While the matter was pending in the above noted two writ petitions filed by the writ petitioner herein, on the date when the order passed by the Special Appellate Court for removal of the data and other research material from the laboratory by the writ petitioner, i.e. on 10.04.2023 itself, a modification application had been filed seeking for modification of the judgment and order dated 24.09.2021 of disposal of Writ-A No.4878 of 2021. 12. 12. Relevant is to note that the prayer for modification on the premise that the past conduct of the writ petitioner or the order of punishment dated 13.09.2021, subject matter of consideration in the previous writ petition, could not have been made basis to impose punishment of compulsory retirement, cannot be subject matter of the modification of the order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Writ Court. The impact of the said decision while disposing of the previous writ petition, over the subsequent punishment order of compulsory retirement can only be examined in the pending writ petition. No comment could have been made by the learned Single Judge on the stand taken by the appellant in the counter affidavit filed in another writ petition, against another punishment order. 13. In any case, the order dated 24.09.2021 could not have been explained, in the manner, as has been made by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the modification application. From all angles, the order dated 25.04.2023 is beyond the scope of the modification of an existing order by this Court. 14. The learned Single Judge in passing the order on the modification application holding that the essence of the order dated 24.09.2021 was that the petitioner shall not be punished and the order impugned in the writ petitions stands wiped out except to the extent that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner of stoppage of three increments, appears to have proceeded on some misconception. 15. Going further, we may also deal with the arguments of Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent herein that the punishment order dated 13.09.2021, based on the inquiry report dated 19.06.2021, submitted by the Internal Complaint Committee (hereinafter referred as, 'ICC'), cannot be said to be a punishment order based on the report of an inquiry officer in a regular departmental inquiry. It is sought to be submitted that the report of the ICC can only be said to be a fact-finding inquiry report or preliminary inquiry report and cannot be treated as a departmental inquiry report. On the report submitted by the ICC, a regular departmental inquiry in accordance with the service rules, was required to be initiated and only, thereafter, the punishment could be imposed by the respondent. On the report submitted by the ICC, a regular departmental inquiry in accordance with the service rules, was required to be initiated and only, thereafter, the punishment could be imposed by the respondent. Further, as in the proceeding before the Writ Court in the previous writ petition, a conciliation had been made and a compromise was arrived between the employer/appellant and the respondent/writ petitioner, there was no occasion for the writ petitioner/respondent to challenge the punishment order dated 13.09.2021. The writ petitioner/respondent had agreed to accept the punishment imposed by the appellant/respondent therein, without any departmental inquiry, in order to give quietus to the litigation. The appellant/respondent had agreed before the Writ Court to pass an order withholding of increment for three years not on the ground of charges levelled against the writ petitioner rather it was agreed that no further action shall be taken against the writ petitioner. 16. Once such was the situation, in light of the observation of the Writ Court in the judgment and order dated 24.09.2021 in the previous writ petition, the order dated 13.09.2021 of imposing penalty of stoppage of three increments could not have affected the future prospects of the writ petitioner in the institute. It is, thus, argued that since the departmental inquiry had not been conducted to pass the punishment order dated 13.09.2021 against the writ petitioner and the matter had been brought to its logical end with the intervention of the Writ Court in the judgment and order dated 24.09.2021, clarification of the said order by the learned Single Judge while disposing the modification application that the order impugned in the said writ petition shall stand wiped out except to the extent that the petitioner would have to suffer the stoppage of three increments and nothing more, cannot be said to suffer from any error of law. 17. Dealing with the issue from this perspective, we are required to note that the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the inquiry report submitted by the ICC was a preliminary inquiry report and a regular departmental inquiry as per the service rules applicable to the writ petitioner/respondent was required to be initiated before passing the punishment order dated 13.09.2021, is untenable. The reason being that the inquiry into the complaint under the POSH Act, 2013 is an inquiry into the matter of allegations of sexual harassment of women at workplace. 18. The reason being that the inquiry into the complaint under the POSH Act, 2013 is an inquiry into the matter of allegations of sexual harassment of women at workplace. 18. The POSH Act, 2013 has been enacted in order to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace. Section 4 of the POSH Act, 2013 mandates every employer to constitute a committee to be named as the Internal Complaints Committee at the workplace, as per the constitution of the committee provided therein. On receipt of the complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules framed under the POSH Act, 2013, the inquiry into the complaint is to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the POSH Act, 2013 read with the Rules framed thereunder. For the purpose of inquiry, the Internal Committee is empowered with the powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, for the matters provided in sub-section (3) of Section 11, namely for summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; requiring the discovery and production of documents; and any other matter which may be prescribed. 19. Section 13 of the POSH Act, 2013 provides that on completion of the inquiry under the Act, the Internal Committee shall provide a report of its finding to the employer. Sub-Section (2) provides that in case the allegations against the employee has not been proved, as per the conclusion of the Internal Committee, no further action is required. 19. Section 13 of the POSH Act, 2013 provides that on completion of the inquiry under the Act, the Internal Committee shall provide a report of its finding to the employer. Sub-Section (2) provides that in case the allegations against the employee has not been proved, as per the conclusion of the Internal Committee, no further action is required. However, sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 13 of the POSH Act, 2013 reads as under: (3) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has been proved, it shall recommend to the employer or the District Officer, as the case may be- (i) to take action for sexual harassment as a misconduct in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent or where no such service rules have been made, in such manner as may be prescribed; (ii) to deduct, notwithstanding anything in the service rules applicable to the respondent, from the salary or wages of the respondent such sum as it may consider appropriate to be paid to the aggrieved woman or to her legal heirs, as it may determine, in accordance with the provisions of section 15: Provided that in case the employer is unable to make such deduction from the salary of the respondent due to his being absent from duty or cessation of employment it may direct to the respondent to pay such sum to the aggrieved woman: Provided further that in case the respondent fails to pay the sum referred to in clause (II), the Internal Committee or, as the case may be, the Local Committee may forward the order for recovery of the sum as an arrear of land revenue to the concerned District Officer. (4) The employer or the District Officer shall act upon the recommendation within sixty days of its receipt by him. 20. A careful reading of Section 13(3) & (4) of the POSH Act, 2013 indicates that on receipt of the report of the Internal Committee that the allegations against the respondent has been proved, on the recommendation made by it, the employer has to take action, treating the sexual harassment as a misconduct, in accordance with the provision of the service rules applicable to the respondent. It is well within the jurisdiction of the employer to deduct any sum as compensation, in accordance with the provisions of Section 15, from the salary or wages of the respondent, and pay it to the aggrieved women or to her legal heirs. Sub-section (4) categorically states that the employer is to take action upon the recommendation within a period of sixty days of its receipt by him. The mandate of the POSH Act, 2013, thus, is that on the recommendation of the Internal Committee to the employer to take action for sexual harassment as a misconduct, no further inquiry is required. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent herein that a regular departmental inquiry is to be conducted after the recommendation of the Internal Committee is a misconception or misreading of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the POSH Act, 2013. 21. Moreover, the said argument cannot be accepted for another reason that the Internal Committee is constituted under the POSH Act, 2013 to deal with the complaints of "sexual harassment" at the workplace. The POSH Act, 2013 has been enacted after the decision of the Apex Court in Vishaka & others v. State of Rajasthan & others 1997 (6) SCC 241 wherein it was held that each incident of sexual harassment of women at workplace results in violation of fundamental rights of right of women to equality under Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and her right to life and to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and right to practice in profession or to carry on his occupation, trade or business which includes a right to safe environment free from sexual harassment. 22. Looking to the nature of complaint, the constitution of Internal Committee has been provided in sub-section (2) of Section 4, which is a committee to be constituted of the members nominated by the employer. The Internal Committee being a committee comprising of the members nominated by the employer, cannot be said to be a committee outside the department, as suggested by the learned Senior Counsel. The Internal Committee constituted under sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the POSH Act, 2013 is an inquiry committee, specialised in dealing with complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace. The Internal Committee constituted under sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the POSH Act, 2013 is an inquiry committee, specialised in dealing with complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace. The report of the Internal Complaint Committee which makes inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the POSH Act, 2013, cannot be said to be a fact-finding inquiry or the report of the vigilance unit. It is departmental inquiry conducted by the specialised inquiry committee, constituted by the employer to deal with the complaints of sexual harassment and on its recommendation the employer is mandated to take action. 23. Proceeding further, we may record that in the instant case, by passing the order dated 29.01.2021, the charges framed against the writ petitioner/respondent herein, were committed to the ICC as inquiry authority to conduct the departmental inquiry in terms of Rule 14(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short, 'CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965'), read with the guidelines contained in the Government of India (DoPT) Office Memorandum F.No. 11013/2/2014-Estt.(A-III) dated 16.07.2015. On completion of the proceedings by the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC), on the report dated 19.06.2021 submitted by it, the Board resolved to award the penalty of withholding of increments for three years" in accordance with the Statute 13(g) of IIT, Kanpur Statues. Apart from the said punishment, the Board had resolved to take certain administrative measures against the writ petitioner/respondent. The memorandum dated 14.07.2021 was issued to the writ petitioner calling him to furnish his explanation. After issuance of the show cause notice, the writ petitioner had submitted representations which were considered by the Board in its meeting held on 03.09.2021 and the punishment of withholding of increment for three years was confirmed. 24. It seems that the show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner during pendency of the previous writ petition No.4878 of 2021. The punishment order dated 13.09.021 was passed when hearing in the matter was concluded by the Writ Court. The judgement in the previous writ petition was reserved on 10.08.2021 and was delivered on 24.09.2021. At no point of time, the writ petitioner had challenged the show cause notice dated 14.07.2021 nor he could have challenged the punishment order issued on 13.09.2021 passed during the pendency of the writ petition as the judgment was reserved on 10.08.2021. The judgement in the previous writ petition was reserved on 10.08.2021 and was delivered on 24.09.2021. At no point of time, the writ petitioner had challenged the show cause notice dated 14.07.2021 nor he could have challenged the punishment order issued on 13.09.2021 passed during the pendency of the writ petition as the judgment was reserved on 10.08.2021. The order sheet of the Writ Petition No.4878 of 2021 does not indicate any date having been fixed by the Writ Court subsequent to the date, i.e. 10.08.2021, when the judgement was reserved and time was granted to the counsels to file written submissions. No re-hearing of the matter was made after 10.08.2021. We may note here that we have summoned the record of the previous writ petition to ascertain the above facts. 25. The writ petition was directed against the memorandum of charges dated 29.01.2021 served upon the writ petitioner containing article of charges and the statement of imputation, as also the recommendation in the inquiry held by the Internal Complaint Committee. It may be noted from the punishment order dated 13.09.2021 indicates that the proceedings of ICC was completed and report was submitted to the Board to the Director of the Institute on 21.05.2021. The proceedings were placed before the Board of Governor on 07.06.2021. The Board after considering the inquiry report, decided to remit the matter to the ICC with certain observation. The revised inquiry report was submitted by the Internal Committee on 19.06.2021 which was considered by the Board in its meeting held on 05.07.2021, wherein after extensive discussion thereon, the Board had accepted the inquiry report. The show cause notice dated 14.07.2021 had been issued on the recommendation of the ICC in its report dated 19.06.2021. In absence of any challenge to the inquiry report of the ICC or the punishment order, issued by the Director of the Institute on the resolution of the Board in its meeting held on 03.09.2021, the argument of learned Senior counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner that the punishment awarded under the order dated 13.09.2021 stood wiped out with the conciliation by the Writ Court in the previous writ petition, is found to be misguiding. 26. 26. In the whole conspectus of the instant case, the learned Single judge has committed a grave error in passing the order on the modification application holding that the essence of the order dated 24.09.2021 of the Writ Court was that the writ petitioner shall not be punished and the order impugned in the writ petition shall stand wiped out, except to the extent that the petitioner would have to bear stoppage of three increments and nothing more. In any case, with the passing of the order passed by the Writ Court, dated 24.09.2021, the punishment order dated 13.09.2021 issued by the Director of the Institute, in compliance of the resolution of the Board in its meeting held on 13.09.2021, stood affirmed and is not open to challenge on merits. 27. Having reached at the above conclusion, we set aside the order dated 25.04.2023 passed on the modification application namely I.A. No.7 of 2023 in Writ-A No.4878 of 2021. The modification application is rejected being misconceived. 28. At the cost of repetition, it is clarified that the impact of the order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Writ Court in the previous writ petition or the punishment order, subject matter of challenge in the subsequent Writ Petition No.4492 of 2023, shall be subject matter of inquiry in the said writ petition. 29. Subject to the above observations and order, the appeal stands allowed.