JUDGMENT : (Dinesh Mehta, J.) : LA. No. 01/2021 1. The respondent - Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’) has preferred the present application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and prayed that the interim order passed by this Court on 19.07.2021 be vacated. 2. Apropos to the present application, some facts are necessary to be narrated, which are:— the petitioner is working on the post of Senior Engineer Assistant (Mech) with the respondent - Corporation a complaint came to be filed by the respondent no. 5 to the Officer of the respondent - Corporation on 13/14.04.2021, reporting that someone came at around 1:00 am on 13.04.2021 and knocked at the door of her residence and when she saw from the door lens, she found that the petitioner was standing in front of the door. 3. The said complaint was followed by subsequent email dated 28.04.2021 and 01.05.2021, more or less narrating the same incident with some additions thereto. 4. Be that as it may. Acting on the complaint(s) so filed, the respondent - Corporation issued a show cause notice dtd. 30.4.2021 to the petitioner asking him why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him as the incident reported by the complainant - respondent no. 5 constituted a misconduct. 5. The petitioner filed his reply to the said notice on 06.05.2021. 6. In the meantime, the Internal Complaints Committee constituted by the respondent - Corporation took cognizance of the incident and complaint was registered on 05.05.2021 whereafter a report dated 08.06.2021 was prepared, of course after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Said report dated 08.06.2021 was forwarded to the petitioner along with a letter dated 18.06.2021. 7. On 24.06.2021 respondent - Corporation placed the petitioner under suspension and on the day next, a charge-sheet came to be issued to the petitioner. 8. Impugning the order of suspension, charge-sheet dated 25.06.2021 and order dated 13.07.2021 (appointing the inquiry officer), the present writ petition has been preferred inter-alia on the ground that neither did the incident reported by the complainant constitute any misconduct under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2013’) nor could the place where the incident occurred be treated to be a ‘work place’. Other arguments were also advanced and finding the case worth consideration, per-viam order dated 19.07.2021, this Court has stayed the suspension order so also the proceedings in furtherance of the memorandum of charges dated 25.06.2021 and order dated 13.07.2021. 9. An amendment application dated 23.03.2022 came to be filed by the petitioner (I.A. No. 02/2022) seeking leave to challenge the report dated 08.06.2021 on the ground that the same is violative of second proviso to Sec. 11 of the Act of 2013, inasmuch as, the petitioner was not afforded opportunity to file his objection/representation qua the report dated 08.06.2021. 10. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation opposed the amendment application tooth and nail by contending that the petitioner having filed the writ petition and being aware of the report dated 08.06.2021 cannot be permitted to lay challenge to the report at a belated stage, particularly when respondents are pursuing their application for vacation of interim order. 11. So far as amendment application is concerned, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has raised purely a legal argument, factual foundation whereof is already on record. Whether the inquiry report or the proceedings initiated by the respondents are illegal or without jurisdiction in the teeth of second proviso to Section 11 of the Act of 2013 is concerned, the same is jurisdictional question and a neat question of law. Such question can be raised at any stage, even without bringing a formal amendment in the writ petition. 12. The amendment application is pending for more than a year and detailed reply to the application has been filed. According to this Court, the interest of justice demands that the petitioner be permitted to raise such plea as the same goes to the root of the matter and hits at the very competence of the recommendations due to non observance of statutory mandate (if any). 13. Hence, without getting into the formality of allowing the amendment application and permitting the incorporation of such ground in the memo of writ petition and calling for amended reply and wasting judicial time on such ceremonies, the petitioner is permitted to advance such arguments with a corresponding liberty to the respondents to respond to such arguments. The application (I.A. No. 02/2022) stands disposed of accordingly. 14. The application (I.A. No. 02/2022) stands disposed of accordingly. 14. Moving on to the application for vacating ex-parte interim order, the first contention of Mr. Shah, learned Senior Counsel has been, that the entire petition is misconceived and the inquiry report and respondents’ action being violative of second proviso to Section 11 of the Act of 2013, need not be gone into because, neither the petitioner's suspension nor the charge-sheet are in pursuance of the proceedings under the Act of 2013. 15. He clarified that maybe the suspension order dated 24.06.2021 which makes a reference of the report dated 08.06.2021 at first flush appears to be a consequence of proceedings under the Act of 2013, but a closer scrutiny of the record unrayels that the disciplinary proceeding which the respondent - Corporation has initiated vide memorandum of charge-sheet dated 25.06.2021 is completely independent of the report dated 08.06.2021. He contended that the respondent - Corporation is proceeding against the petitioner in furtherance of a complaint dated 28.04.2021 submitted by the respondent no. 5. While highlighting that no reliance has been placed on the inquiry report dated 08.06.2021 furnished by Internal Complaints Committee under Section 11 of the Act of 2013, he argued that the interim order deserves to be vacated. 16. Mr. Saluja, learned, counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents are proceeding against the petitioner solely in furtherance of the report dated 08.06.2021 furnished by the Internal Complaints Committee, which is evident from the suspension order so also the memorandum of charges, which make clear reference of the report dated 08.06.2021. Learned counsel submitted that a simple look at second proviso to Section 11 of the Act of 2013 makes it abundantly clear that Internal Complaints Committee is required to furnish a copy of the report to the parties (petitioner and complainant) and then, give them an opportunity to make representation before making any recommendation under Section 13 of the Act of 2013. 17. Learned counsel argued that since opportunity of making representation has not been given to the petitioner the recommendation made by the Internal Complaints Committee in its report dated 08.06.2021 cannot be acted upon. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Dhaker v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (NPCIL), (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 705/2022). 18. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Dhaker v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (NPCIL), (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 705/2022). 18. It was also argued by Mr. Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Act of 2013, the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee can be acted upon only after following the procedure provided under the relevant statute or standing orders. He argued that the respondents are proceeding against the petitioner, in a bid to comply with the recommendations. He apprehend that the respondents are going to act upon the recommendations made in the inquiry report dated 08.06.2021 and are likely, to pass an order under the provisions of the Act of 2013. 19. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent - Corporation on the application filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. 20. Despite service of notice, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent no. 5. 21. In view of the stand taken by the respondent - Corporation in Para - 9 of the reply, and what has been submitted by Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation, it is apparent that the impugned proceedings initiated by the charge-sheet dated 25.06.2021 are unconnected with the recommendation made by Internal Complaints Committee on 08.06.2021. 22. Apart from Mr. Shah's categorical stand, a perusal of the charge-sheet, the list of document (Annexure-I) and list of witnesses (Annexure-II) with the charge-sheet shows that the inquiry report dated 08.06.2021, furnished by the Internal Complaints Committee is not even a document relied upon. Though there is a reference of said report dated 08.06.2021 in the order of suspension, but the same has been taken or narrated as a fact simplicitor in order to show the necessity of placing the petitioner under suspension and with a view to show that a primafacie case of misconduct or disorderly behaviour is made out against the petitioner. But such passing reference of the report dated 08.06.2021 in the manner made, cannot convert disciplinary proceedings under the relevant standing orders to be one under the Act of 2013. 23. But such passing reference of the report dated 08.06.2021 in the manner made, cannot convert disciplinary proceedings under the relevant standing orders to be one under the Act of 2013. 23. Furthermore, a simple look at the recommendations made in the report dated 08.06.2021 shows that as many as four recommendations were made by the Committee, out of which three have admittedly not been acted upon so far. 24. First recommendation regarding taking proceedings for major penalty seems to have been given effect to as the same is reflected in the recommendation dated 08.06.2021, but the charge-sheet dated 25.06.2021 does not hinge upon the report or the recommendation dated 08.06.2021. The articles of allegations/charge-sheet and the documents relied upon in the charge-sheet are starkly different. 25. It is noteworthy that even before the Internal Complaints Committee came into action, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 30.04.2021 asking him as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against him. Hence this Court has no hesitation in accepting the stand of the Corporation that the proceedings under challenge are other than the proceeding under the Act of 2013. 26. In view of what has been noticed herein above and in the face of the stand of the respondent - Corporation that the impugned proceedings are not in furtherance of the recommendations, all the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner relating to non-compliance of second proviso to Section 11 of the Act of 2013; the proceedings which have been initiated, so also the ground that the alleged incident neither amounted to sexual offence nor did the place of incident come within the ambit of ‘work place need not detain this Court at this stage. 27. Since the impugned disciplinary proceedings has no nexus with the inquiry conducted under the Act of 2013 and the charges levelled against the petitioner are likely to fall within the ambit of disorderly behaviour, if not sexual offence, this Court finds no reason to stall the proceeding oppugned in the present petition. 28. Maybe the incident or petitioner's alleged conduct does not fall foul to the provisions of Act of 2013 but nevertheless the same cannot be countenanced and hence, suspension and the disciplinary proceedings per se cannot be said to be arbitrary, vindictive, without jurisdiction or illegal. 29. 28. Maybe the incident or petitioner's alleged conduct does not fall foul to the provisions of Act of 2013 but nevertheless the same cannot be countenanced and hence, suspension and the disciplinary proceedings per se cannot be said to be arbitrary, vindictive, without jurisdiction or illegal. 29. As a necessary corollary of what has been discussed afore, the interim order dated 19.07.2021 deserves to be and is hereby vacated. 30. Application (I.A. No. 01/2021) is allowed; petitioner's suspension is revived. The respondent - Corporation will be free to proceed against the petitioner in furtherance of suspension order dated 24.06.2021 and memorandum of charges dated 25.06.2021. 31. While keeping the writ petition pending it is enjoined upon the respondent - Corporation and Internal Complaints Committee to hear petitioner's representation pursuant to report dated 08.06.2021 in accordance with law in order to observe the mandate of second proviso to Section 11 of - the Act of 2013, which has been interpreted by the Division Bench in the case of Vijay. Dhaker, (supra) in following terms: “A conjoint reading of Sec. 11 and 13 of the Act of 2013 shows that the ICC shall submit final report to the employer only after examining the representations, if any, made against findings recorded by it. Sec. 11 of the Act of 2013 ensures that an employee does not suffer undue hardship on account of false/frivolous complaints made against him and at the same time, it also ensures that unwelcoming acts/behavior do not go unpunished because of faulty analysis or gathering of information during investigation/inquiry conducted by the ICC”. 32. It is hereby ordered that in case the respondents wish to proceed against the petitioner under the Act of 2013 and act upon the recommendations made by the Internal Complaints Committee in its report dated 08.06.2021, they shall do so only after decision of petitioner's representation by the Internal Complaints Committee. 33. The petitioner may file his objection/representation qua the report dated 08.06.2021 on or before 28.04.2023. In case, the representation is so filed, the Internal Complaints Committee shall consider the same in accordance with law and then, take a fresh decision as to whether any recommendation(s) are required to be made and if yes, what recommendations are warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 34. In case, the representation is so filed, the Internal Complaints Committee shall consider the same in accordance with law and then, take a fresh decision as to whether any recommendation(s) are required to be made and if yes, what recommendations are warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 34. Needless to observe that the inquiry officer appointed by order dated 13.07.2021 will conduct inquiry in accordance with law, obviously after providing requisite opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as per the standing orders. The competent authority of the respondents will be free to take any decision in furtherance of the inquiry report so furnished by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law and standing orders, but the same shall not be given effect to without the leave of the Court. 35. Any observation made or finding recorded in the order instant shall not be construed to be a final finding of this Court about petitioner's guilt or otherwise. Both the parties shall be free to put forth their contentions in accordance with law.