The Court held that the inquiry conducted by the appropriate body can only be held to be final when it adheres to the procedure established.

The petitioner was against a second inquiry being conducted against him by the complaints committee. The petitioner moved to the court pleading that the report of an earlier inquiry, which had been conducted against him, to be treated as the final report of the inquiring committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. The petitioner contended that an inquiry had already been conducted by an inquiring committee, making the second inquiry void ab initio and akin to principle of double jeopardy. He contended that the respondent was not justified in filing a second complaint.

It was held by the court that the first report by the inquiry committee was not valid and the respondent was justified in filing a second complaint.

The court rightfully held that the first report was undertaken without any adherence to the procedure that had previously been established in the CSS Rules, for which the first ICC could not be treated as the inquiring body. In order to treated as a proper ICC proceeding, it is mandatory that the ICC members followed the rules as provided in the CSS Rules for inquiry process.