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. T