'Resignation Can't Be Construed As Voluntary' : Supreme Court Directs MP HC To Reinstate Woman District Judge Who Raised Sexual Harassment Complaint Against HC Judge

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to reinstate a resigned woman Additional District Judge, who had raised sexual harassment allegations against a then sitting judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.The Supreme Court held that her resignation, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be "construed as voluntary" and therefore quashed the decision of the High Court to accept her resignation.While ordering her reinstatement as an Additional District Judge, the Supreme Court held that she will not be entitled to backwages, but will be entitled to continuity in service with all consequential benefits.The Court was delivering verdict in the the writ petition filed by a woman Additional District Judge (ADJ) seeking to be reinstated on the ground that her resignation was due to coercion.On 01.02.2022, a Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai had reserved the judgment. The Supreme Court had earlier suggested to the Madhya Pradesh High Court to consider reinstating the petitioner. However, the Full Court of the MP HC took a decision that her request cannot be accepted. Today, Justice Gavai, before pronouncing the judgment, said : "We have not gone into the correctness of the resolution of the Full Court rejecting the representation. We have independently examined the material on record, assessed the transfer orders, the rejection of her representation and whether the resignation can be considered voluntary".Then Justice Gavai read out the operative portion of the judgment: "Writ petition is partly allowed. We hold and declare that the petitioner's resignation from the post of ADJ cannot be construed to be voluntary and the order dated 17th July, 2014 passed by Respondent No. 2 accepting the resignation of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner forthwith as ADJ, though the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages, should be entitled to continuity in services with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 15th July, 2014. No order as to cost".Background The petitioner alleged that hostile transfer orders were passed as she did not act as per the demands of the supervising High Court judge. She complained that was faced with transfer from a Category 'A' city to Category 'C' city and also a Naxal affected area, in violation of the extant transfer policy of the High Court. Since the transfer would have prevented her from being with her daughter who was then appearing for the board exams, she was faced with no option but to resign. Later, she approached the Supreme Court asserting her right to be reinstated. The petitioner had joined the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services in 2011. After her training, she was posted as an Additional District Judge. The respondent High Court Judge was in-charge of assessing the work of the petitioner. After resigning, on 01.08.2014, the petitioner sent a letter to the Chief Justice of India ("CJI"), inter alia, seeking consideration of the hostile circumstances under which she was forced to resign. On 09.08.2014, Chief Justice of MP High Court apprised the CJI, that he had constituted a two-member committee to look into the issue. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the constitution of the said In-House Committee and the Apex Court held that the Chief Justice of the High Court had exceeded the authority by delving into a more holistic determination than what was prescribed under the "In-House Procedure." Thereafter, the CJI constituted an In-House Committee. In its report dated 02.07.2015, it stated that the material was insufficient to establish the charge of sexual harassment, but ordered not to rely on its findings. On 04.03.2015, 58 members of the Rajya Sabha gave notice to the Chairperson of a motion for removal of the concerned judge under Article 217(1)(c) read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India on grounds of sexual harassment of a woman ADJ; victimisation of the ADJ for not submitting to his demands, by transferring her; misusing position as Administrative Judge of High Court. Accordingly, the Chairperson of Rajya Sabha set up a Judges Inquiry Committee ("JIC") presided by Justice R. Bhanumathi and comprising the then Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, Manjula Chellur and Senior Advocate, K.K. Venugopal(as he was then). On 15.12.2017, the JIC had submitted its report, wherein, inter alia, it had found the transfer order to be punitive, irregular, unjustified and not in the interest of the administration. "62.…The transfer committee committed an irregularity on solely relying on the recommendation of District Judge Kamal Singh Thakur and without making any verification or enquiring on the same, was not justified in transferring the complainant in mid-session. Equally unjustifiable was the rejection of her representations. Transfer...

'Resignation Can't Be Construed As Voluntary' : Supreme Court Directs MP HC To Reinstate Woman District Judge Who Raised Sexual Harassment Complaint Against HC Judge

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags