SC refers plea of former woman judicial officer to new bench

The Supreme Court Friday listed before a new bench the plea of a former woman judicial officer seeking reinstatement after having resigned following an inquiry into her allegations of sexual harassment against a sitting high court judge.

The top court referred the matter to a new bench after a three-judge bench of Justices A K Sikri, S A Nazeer and M R Shah, which had been dealing with the plea, recused itself Thursday from further hearing in view of their suggestion asking the Madhya Pradesh High Court to re-consider its earlier order not to take back the judicial officer back in service.

 

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi took note of the submission of senior advocate Indira Jaising, the counsel for the former judicial officer, that the case to assigned to other bench.

"On mentioning, the matter is taken on Board. List the matter on March 1, 2019 before the bench presided over by Justice S A Bobde," said the bench, also comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

A bench headed by Justice Sikri, on February 13, had requested the "Full Court of the High Court to reconsider the matter" and made clear that its order was passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court yesterday informed it that the "Full Court of the High Court after reconsideration has also decided to stand by its earlier decision" of not taking the officer back in service.

While recusing itself, the bench had said: "This bench feels that having regard to the nature of the order passed on February 13, this bench should not deal with the matter on merits now.

"This decision is taken notwithstanding the statement of the senior counsel appearing on both sides that they have full faith and trust in this Bench. The matter be listed before another bench, subject to the orders of the Chief Justice of India."

The apex court had also quizzed the High Court official as to why a woman judicial officer, seeking reinstatement after having resigned following inquiry into her allegations of sexual harassment against a sitting high court judge, was not allowed to meet the then Chief Justice.

It had said that the high court will have to explain the circumstances in which the trial judge was transferred to Sidhi from Gwalior on the ground of pendency of cases as the Judges Inquiry Committee (JIC) have opined that it was not the valid ground.

Earlier, a motion of impeachment had been admitted against the high court judge after 58 members of the Rajya Sabha supported the woman's case.

However, the report of the panel comprising Supreme Court judge R Banumathi, Justice Manjula Chellur (then Bombay High Court judge) and jurist K K Venugopal (now Attorney General for India) gave clean chit to the high court judge was tabled before the Rajya Sabha on December 15, 2017.

The woman moved the apex court seeking that the administrative order of January 11, 2013, passed by the high court, dismissing her application for reinstatement into the state Higher Judicial Services, should be set aside.

In her plea, the former trial judge said that her fundamental rights granted under the Constitution for employment, to work and to carry on her profession need to be secured.

She said that high court had ignored the categorical finding in the report of the JIC dated December 15, 2017 terming the petitioner's resignation dated July 15, 2014 from her post of Additional District Judge as "unbearable circumstances having no other option".

The plea has said that Madhya Pradesh High Court had dismissed her application "without assigning any valid reasons for the rejection and in utter disregard of the findings of fact arrived by the Judges Inquiry Committee in its report".

"After the inquiry proceedings conducted against the respondent judge on three charges relating to sexual harassment, consequent victimisation and transfer of the petitioner, the JIC held that the charges were not proved and hence cleared him of all charges," the petition has said.

It, however, said the JIC took note of the arbitrary and sudden transfer of the petitioner from Gwalior to Sidhi which was done "in complete violation of the transfer policy, not on administrative exigencies and concluded that the transfer of the petitioner was in violation of the transfer Policy - punitive, irregular, unjustified, arbitrary and hurried".

The woman in her plea has added that the JIC had opined that "the petitioner be reinstated in service since her resignation was tendered under coercion".

The woman trial judge was transferred to Sidhi from Gwalior which she termed as "illegal", "unjust" and "punitive transfer" as their was no vacancy in Sidhi nor any administrative exigencies.