Supreme Court orders reinstatement of MP judicial officer who alleged sexual harassment by HC judge

The bench quashed and set aside the July 17, 2014 order accepting her resignation and “directed to re-instate” her “forthwith as an Additional District & Sessions Judge”.

The order clarified that she will not be entitled to back wages but will have continuity in service with all consequential benefits with effect from July 15, 2014.

The bench did not go into the sexual harassment allegations since the petitioner herself said she was not pressing them, and was limiting the challenge to her transfer and resignation.

The judicial officer, who was Additional District & Sessions Judge in Gwalior, said she was forced to leave her job after she was transferred to Sidhi when she resisted the harassment.

Following the transfer order dated July 8, 2014, she had submitted two representations — one seeking extension of eight months and the other seeking transfer to any of the four cities she had cited — to the High Court Registrar General so that the education of her daughter, who was then in Class XII, would not be affected. But these were rejected.

On this, the bench said the Registrar General failed to take into consideration relevant factors while deciding the representation of the petitioner.

“The then judge on the Transfer Committee, in his deposition before the JIC (Judges Inquiry Committee constituted by the Rajya Sabha Chairman following a motion by 58 MPs), had clearly admitted that he had not gone into the annexures, which were attached with the representation of the petitioner.”

“Non-consideration of the relevant material and consideration of the extraneous material would come into the realm of irrationality. An action which is arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, find that the rejection of the representations of the petitioner dated 9th July 2014 and 11th July 2014, would also not stand the scrutiny of law,” the bench said.

Writing for the bench, Justice Gavai said: “One cannot imagine the trauma which the petitioner must have faced during this short period of time… The petitioner was a Judicial Officer and a mother too. The Judicial Officer in her must have been battling with the mother in her… What was she asking for? A retention at Gwalior for a period of 8 months till her daughter completes her Class 12th. In the alternative, posting at any of the 4 cities, which were admittedly in Category ‘B’, where her daughter could have better education facilities, and where the vacancies existed.”

The order noted: “The frustration of the petitioner is evident from the language used by her in her resignation letter… It appears that in a gruesome battle between a mother and a Judicial Officer, the Judicial Officer lost the battle to the mother”.

The JIC, comprising Justice R Banumathi, then a judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Manjula Chellur, then Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, and Senior Advocate K K Venugopal, in its report stated that the sexual harassment allegations raised by the judicial officer “are not proved beyond reasonable doubt”. It, however, found her transfer unjustified and recommended that she be reinstated in service if she wished to join back.

Although she sought reinstatement, the High Court rejected this in a Full Court meeting, following which she approached the Supreme Court in 2018.

While the matter was pending before it, the Supreme Court asked the High Court to reconsider her request for reinstatement, but this was again rejected in another Full Court meeting.

In its order Thursday, the bench said: “We have not at all gone into the question, regarding the correctness or otherwise of the decisions of the Full Court of the MP High Court with regard to the rejection of the petitioner’s representation… there might be reasons and factors which might have weighed with the Full Court of the MP High Court for taking such a decision… we reiterate that we have full respect for the authority of the Full Court to arrive at such a decision.”