The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine a plea by a woman judicial officer, who had resigned in the wake of enquiry on her complaint of alleged sexual harassment against a sitting high court judge, seeking reinstatement in service.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioner, said that issue of reinstatement in service needs to be looked into by the court and the high court's administrative order of January 11, 2017 set aside.
"We will look into every aspect," the bench said.
The petitioner said her fundamental rights granted under the Constitution for employment, to work and to carry on her profession needs to be secured.
She said the administrative order of January 11, 2017 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, by which it had dismissed her application seeking reinstatement into the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services should be set aside.
The petition said the high court ignored the categorical finding in the report of the Judges Inquiry Committee 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".
It said that the her "resignation was neither voluntary nor conscious but was actuated by her illegal mid-term transfer which was punitive, irregular, unjustified, arbitrary and actuated by bias/mala fides hence amounts to constructive dismissal which merits to be set aside being and the consequential relief of reinstatement with full back wages".
The plea said that the Madhya Pradesh High Court had dismiss the application of the Petitioner "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.
It added that motion for removal under Article 217 read with Article 124 of the Constitution was instituted against the respondent judge in the Rajya Sabha on allegations of sexual harassment and consequent victimization levelled by the Petitioner.
"After the inquiry proceedings conducted against the Respondent Judge on three charges relating to sexual harassment, consequent victimization and transfer of the Petitioner, the Judges Inquiry Committee held that the charges were not proved and hence cleared him of all charges," the petition said.
It said, however, the Judges Inquiry Committee 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 added that the judges inquiry committee had opined that "the petitioner be reinstated in service since her resignation was tendered under coercion".
A motion of impeachment was admitted against the high court judge after 58 members of the Rajya Sabha supported the woman's case.
The report of the panel comprising Supreme Court judge R Bhanumathi, Justice Manjula Chellur (then Bombay High Court judge) and jurist K K Venugopal (now Attorney General for India) had given a clean chit to the high court judge was tabled before the Rajya Sabha on December 15, 2017.
The woman in her plea claimed that she had practised as an advocate in various courts including the Supreme Court, the High Court, Tribunals for 15 years before she qualified in the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services on March 23, 2011, and thereafter was selected as the 2nd Additional Judge to 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior on August 1, 2011.
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)