JUDGMENT : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. S. Banik, learned Legal Aid counsel for respondent no.5. 2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that on 28.07.2021, while he was working as the Deputy General Manager (Instrumentation)- cum- Head of the Instrumentation Department, NRL, Numaligarh, the respondent no. 5 had made a complaint before the Presiding Officer, Internal Complaints Committee of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace, NRL (ICC for short), inter alia, alleging that the petitioner had given her a drink and thereafter, she became unconscious and during that period her body was violated by the petitioner. 3. On 19.08.2021, the respondent no. 5 had also lodged an FIR before the Golaghat Police Station against the petitioner, alleging sexual assault. Accordingly, Golaghat P.S. Case No. 813/2021, under section 354A/376 IPC was registered. The petitioner was arrested on 20.08.2021 in connection with the said police case and he was released on 29.10.2021, pursuant to an order dated 26.10.2021, passed by this Court in B.A. No. 2624/2021. 4. In the meanwhile, on and from 10.08.2021, the ICC had initiated the proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the proceedings on 11.08.2021, and he had sought for 10 (ten) days time to file his written statement. However, before the expiry of the said 10 days time, the petitioner was arrested on 20.08.2021. Therefore, he could not file his written statement and he could not participate in the enquiry conducted by the ICC. On culmination of the ICC enquiry, a report dated 19.11.2021 was submitted wherein recommendation was made for the NRL authorities to take action against the petitioner for sexual harassment as a misconduct in accordance with the provisions of service rules applicable to the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the said ICC Report dated 19.11.2021, by submitting a letter dated 14.02.2022, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Director (Technical). 5. Aggrieved by the said ICC Report dated 19.11.2021, by submitting a letter dated 14.02.2022, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Director (Technical). However, by a reply dated 30.03.2022, the Director (Tech)- and- Managing Director (In-charge) informed the petitioner to address the appeal against the recommendations of the ICC to the authority constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "PoSH Act, 2013" in short). 6. Hence, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the ICC Enquiry Report dated 19.11.2021. 7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the ICC report dated 19.11.2021 would reflect that the ICC was aware that the petitioner was arrested and taken into judicial custody on 20.08.2021, in connection with Golaghat P.S. Case No. 813/2021. It was submitted that by the time the petitioner was released on 29.10.2021, by that time the ICC had examined all the 14 witnesses in course of proceedings held on 09.09.2021, 10.09.2021 and 05.10.2021. It was further submitted that the ICC had met the petitioner in jail. But as the petitioner was in judicial custody, he was not in a proper frame of mind to take a proper defence and he also did not have any access to any legal advice. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner did not get any opportunity to (a) file his written statement; (b) cross-examine any witness; and (c) to give defence evidence in connection with the said ICC enquiry. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in compliance of the principles of natural justice. 8. In support of the submissions, reliance is placed on the second proviso to Section 11 of the PoSH Act, 2013. It is also submitted that under Section 13(4) thereof, based on the recommendations made by the ICC, the employer has to act on such recommendation within 60 days of its receipt. Accordingly, it is submitted that the said ex parte ICC Enquiry Report had caused severe prejudice to the petitioner. 9. It is also submitted that under Section 13(4) thereof, based on the recommendations made by the ICC, the employer has to act on such recommendation within 60 days of its receipt. Accordingly, it is submitted that the said ex parte ICC Enquiry Report had caused severe prejudice to the petitioner. 9. Per contra, vehemently opposing this writ petition, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 to 4 has submitted that the petitioner would get a full and reasonable opportunity for defending himself in the disciplinary proceedings that has been initiated against him and he would also get a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the management witnesses and to give his defence evidence. Therefore, the principles of natural justice would be fully complied with. 10. It is also submitted that the PoSH Act provides a statutory timeline within which the recommendations of the ICC has to be acted upon. It is also submitted that under Section 13(1) of the PoSH Act, 2013, the ICC enquiry is required to be completed within 10 days and a report is required to be submitted before the concerned authorities. Accordingly, it is submitted that the ICC of the NRL could not have violated the mandate of Section 13(1) of the PoSH Act, 2013. 11. On a Court query, the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 4, upon instructions, has submitted that under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1995, applicable to the NRL employees, the ICC will be the authority for taking up Departmental Proceeding in respect of those persons in their employment who are accused of sexual harassment of women at workplace. 12. The learned legal aid counsel has also vehemently opposed the prayers made in this writ petition and has also submitted that the petitioner would not suffer any prejudice in respect of the Enquiry Report dated 19.11.2021. In that regard, it was submitted that the said ICC Enquiry Report can only partake the character of formal report and the regular Departmental Enquiry under the applicable Service Rules is indispensable. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner will get all the opportunity of defending himself against the ICC Enquiry Report. 13. It is also submitted that the ICC Enquiry Report dated 19.11.2021 would only be a document which had triggered the initiation of a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner will get all the opportunity of defending himself against the ICC Enquiry Report. 13. It is also submitted that the ICC Enquiry Report dated 19.11.2021 would only be a document which had triggered the initiation of a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the ICC Enquiry Report would have any bearing on the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner or that it would prejudice the petitioner in any manner. 14. In support of his submissions, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent no.5 has cited the case of Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala & Ors., 2020 INSC 93 : (2020) 12 SCC 426 . 15. By referring to clause 1.5 and 1.6 of the ICC Enquiry Report dated 19.11.2021, it is submitted that the statement of the petitioner was recorded in jail on 11.10.2021. Prior to that the petitioner was granted 3 (three) extensions for furnishing his written response to the complaint filed by the respondent no.5. However, as per the said ICC Enquiry Report, the petitioner had not given his comments against the specific questions of the ICC on the complaint by citing his prevailing circumstances as an under-trial prisoner. It is submitted that even after the petitioner was released on bail pursuant to the order dated 26.10.2021, the petitioner did not contact the ICC and did not cooperate and/or participate in the enquiry. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner had waived his right to take a defence and it cannot be said that he has suffered any prejudice on that count. It is submitted that only after the ICC Enquiry Report dated 19.11.2021 was served on the petitioner, he had submitted his representations. By referring to the clause 1.7 of the said ICC Enquiry Report, it is submitted that the finding of the ICC was made available to both parties by e- mail dated 05.11.2021, asking them to respond by 09.11.2021. The time to respond was extended to 10.11.2021, and representations were submitted by both sides on the finding of the ICC. Thereafter, on considering the said reply, the ICC Enquiry Report dated 19.11.2021 was prepared. The time to respond was extended to 10.11.2021, and representations were submitted by both sides on the finding of the ICC. Thereafter, on considering the said reply, the ICC Enquiry Report dated 19.11.2021 was prepared. Hence, it is submitted that by allowing the petitioner to submit his response against the finding of the ICC, the petitioner was provided with right to natural justice and he was also given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 16. Having heard all the three sides, the materials available on record and the cases cited at the Bar have been given due consideration. 17. At the outset, it may be stated that under the second proviso to Section 11 of the PoSH Act, 2013, the following has been laid down:- "Provided further that where both the parties are employees, the parties shall, during the course of inquiry, be given an opportunity of being heard and a copy of the findings shall be made available to both the parties enabling them to make representation against the findings before the Committee." 18. As per sub-section (4) of the Section 11 of the PoSH Act, 2013, the enquiry under sub-section (1) is required to be completed within a period of 90 days. Moreover, in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the said Act, the employer is required to act upon the recommendation made by the ICC within 60 days of its receipt. The provision of Rule 7 of the PoSH Rules, 2013, provides for the manner of enquiry into the complaint and under sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the POSH Rules, the ICC is required to make enquiry into the complaint in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 19. Therefore, the enquiry by the ICC is required to be done in compliance with the principles of natural justice. In the present case in hand, the petitioner was in judicial custody since his arrest on 20.08.2021. He claims to have been released on bail on 29.10.2021, pursuant to order dated 26.10.2021, passed by this court in B.A. No. 2624/2021. During this intervening period, the witness nos. 1 to 6 were examined on 09.09.2021; witness nos. 7 to 13 were examined on 10.09.2021; and witness no. 14 was examined on 05.10.2021. However, being in jail, the petitioner had lost any opportunity to cross-examine the said 14 (fourteen) witnesses. 20. During this intervening period, the witness nos. 1 to 6 were examined on 09.09.2021; witness nos. 7 to 13 were examined on 10.09.2021; and witness no. 14 was examined on 05.10.2021. However, being in jail, the petitioner had lost any opportunity to cross-examine the said 14 (fourteen) witnesses. 20. In para 1.5 of the ICC Enquiry Report dated 19.11.2021, it is mentioned that the statement of the petitioner was recorded by ICC on 11.10.2021 in Golaghat Jail. However, it is also mentioned that the petitioner had not commented to the pointed and specific questions of the ICC on the complaint received by citing his prevailing circumstances as under-trial prisoner, mental condition, and legal implications considering that any comment that he made before ICC may be produce in the Court of law and used against him. Therefore, the petitioner had stated that he would fully cooperate with the enquiry process when he is out on bail. 21. In paragraph 1.6 of the said ICC Enquiry Report, it is stated that the petitioner, after securing bail did not contact the ICC as advice to him by vide letter dated 07.09.2021. Accordingly, the ICC had recorded a finding that the petitioner was not cooperating with the ICC in the matter and sufficient opportunities were granted to him during the enquiry process and that only after the findings were sent by the ICC, the petitioner had submitted his representation on the findings. 22. In response to the statement made by the learned Legal Aid Counsel, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was released on 29.10.2021, pursuant to bail order dated 26.10.2021. He has also produced a print-out of an email dated 06.11.2021 send by the petitioner to Madhuchanda Adhikari at email address of madhuchanda. adhikari@nrl.co.in, whereby the petitioner had stated that as prayed in the meeting held in the District Jail, Golaghat, on 11.10.2021, he had requested that the said authority to give him an opportunity to a file written statement against the complaint. adhikari@nrl.co.in, whereby the petitioner had stated that as prayed in the meeting held in the District Jail, Golaghat, on 11.10.2021, he had requested that the said authority to give him an opportunity to a file written statement against the complaint. In the said email, it was also stated that the petitioner was recovering from his frail health to normal state of mind after the bail order and he sought for some time till 20.11.2021 to do so as he had limited access to collect evidence or to discuss with witnesses as he was under suspension and that due to his arrest while on transit at Guwahati, some of his documents were lost. It is submitted that the said email was not responded to. It has been submitted that the said e-mail dated 06.11.2021 was not part of the record and he was producing the same as per instructions received. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has prayed the same may be made part of it. Accordingly, the copy of the said e-mail is retained in the record. 23. As per the said ICC Enquiry Report, the proceeding against the petitioner was initiated on 10.08.2021. Before the petitioner could submit his written statement, he was arrested on 20.08.2021. He was released on bail on 29.10.2021. Therefore, the petitioner had got no opportunity to respond to the allegation made against him. While the petitioner was in jail, 14 (fourteen) witnesses were examined. As per the provision of section 13 of PoSH Act, 2013, the ICC Enquiry Report is required to be acted upon. Therefore, in the departmental proceeding, the ICC Enquiry Report has the potential to be accepted as an evidence. If the ICC Enquiry Report is acceptable as an evidence, there would be no need for the Disciplinary Authority to again examine all the 14 witnesses. As per the provision of section 13 of the PoSH Act, 2013, the Management is bound to take action against the concerned employee for misconduct in accordance with the relevant Service Rules applicable. Therefore, we find force in the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the ICC Enquiry Report would become an evidence and the said ICC Enquiry Report has to be acted upon. 24. Therefore, we find force in the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the ICC Enquiry Report would become an evidence and the said ICC Enquiry Report has to be acted upon. 24. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner is not granted one opportunity to participate in the ICC Enquiry proceeding by filing his written statement of defence and to cross-examine the witnesses, the petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable prejudice, which cannot be undone in course of the departmental proceedings for the reason that in the ICC proceedings, no written statement of defence of the petitioner would be on record. Moreover, the evidence of 14 (fourteen) witnesses examined by the ICC would remain uncontroverted, without any cross-examination whatsoever. Both circumstances would operate as admission by the petitioner. 25. The Court does not see any reason to brush aside the apprehension of the petitioner as unreasonable that while in jail, he was reluctant to reply to specific queries on the ground that his statement may be used against him as he was an under-trial prisoner. 26. Under second proviso to section 11 of the PoSH Act, 2013, read with Rule 7(4) of the PoSH Rules, 2013, the petitioner was entitled to be heard in compliance of the principles of natural justice. Hearing the petitioner in jail cannot be said to be in compliance of the said provision of law. Therefore, in light of the discussions above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the said ICC Report dated 19.11.2021 along with its recommendation be set aside and quashed. Resultantly, the matter is remanded back to the Internal Complaints Committee, NRL, for a fresh proceeding by giving the petitioner a last chance to file his written statement of defence. The petitioner shall also be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses already examined by the ICC. It would be open to the ICC to deny any unnecessary adjournment to the petitioner and to complete the process of enquiry within a reasonable time. 27. Resultantly, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. 28. The petitioner shall also be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses already examined by the ICC. It would be open to the ICC to deny any unnecessary adjournment to the petitioner and to complete the process of enquiry within a reasonable time. 27. Resultantly, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. 28. To avoid any delay, the petitioner is directed to produce a certified copy of this order along with his written statement within 05.07.2024, either physically or through e-mail addressed to the competent authority, who on receipt of the same would place it before the ICC for passing an appropriate order to order production of witness and to grant opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses on such dates as may be fixed. It is reiterated that it would be open to the ICC to deny adjournment to the petitioner. 29. It is also clarified that if any Member of the ICC is no longer available for any reason whatsoever, it would be open to the Management of NRL, Numaligarh to reconstitute the ICC. 30. Before parting with the records, we express hope that the ICC would make an endeavour to conclude the proceeding within a reasonable time.