As per case facts, the Petitioner challenged an Office Order (2015), Inquiry Report (2021), and Show Cause Notice (2022) regarding a sexual harassment complaint. The complaint was filed in 2015, ... leading to an inquiry that found misconduct against the Petitioner, prompting a Show Cause Notice. The Petitioner appealed, arguing the inquiry was without jurisdiction due to violations of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, regarding the constitution of the inquiry body, absence of a formal 'Article of Charge', and the retrospective application of a 2015 DoPT OM. The question arose whether the inquiry proceedings were "wholly without jurisdiction" or "patently illegal" to warrant interference at the show-cause notice stage. Finally, the court dismissed the petition. It ruled that the inquiry body was validly constituted per rules, the absence of a separate 'Article of Charge' was a procedural irregularity not causing prejudice given the Petitioner's participation, and the 2015 OM applied prospectively. The court found no merit, allowing disciplinary proceedings to continue.