MADHYA PRADESH / Supreme Court reinstates former judicial officer who accused High Court judge of sexual harassment

The Supreme Court has reinstated a woman judge who had leveled sexual harassment allegations against the then Madhya Pradesh High Court judge. The woman judge had said that in 2014 she was forced to resign. It should be reinstated on this basis. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had opposed the reinstatement of a woman judge in the Supreme Court.

Actually, the matter is of 2014. The former woman judicial officer had accused the High Court judge of sexual harassment and it was proved wrong in the investigation. Last month, the Madhya Pradesh High Court told the Supreme Court that a former woman judicial officer who had resigned following an inquiry into her allegations of sexual harassment against a high court judge, cannot allege that she had resigned four years after her complaint was found to be false. Forced to give

Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai set aside the order accepting the resignation of the woman judge. Also ordered to appoint him as Additional District Judge in Madhya Pradesh Judiciary. However, they will not be entitled to receive pay and allowances for this period. The woman judge had said that the reason for the resignation of the petitioner on 15 July 2014 was ignored by the High Court in the report of the Inquiry Committee of Judges on 15 December 2017. The woman judge was left with no option, so she resigned from the post of additional district judge.

Last month, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Registrar General of the High Court, told the Supreme Court that the woman had cited unfavorable working environment as grounds for her resignation that she was allegedly compelled to resign because of this. He has raised this matter four years after alleging sexual harassment.

Mehta had told that a three-judge inquiry committee comprising former Supreme Court judge Justice R Banumathi, Justice Manjula Chellur and senior advocate KK Venugopal in its report tabled in the Rajya Sabha in December 2017 had acquitted the accused High Court judge of sexual harassment. . The committee conducted the investigation keeping in view all the aspects. The committee was aware that the allegations leveled were not timely but late. He said the woman's argument that she was under pressure due to sexual harassment could not be proved.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioner, had submitted that the former judicial lady officer was forced to resign as she was forced to choose between her daughter and her career. The argument of his (former officer's) daughter continuing till the completion of 12th standard was rejected. Her second plea that she should be transferred to B cities, instead of at least category A, where she has a college for her daughter, was also rejected. After the second application was rejected, she had to resign amid the disappointment of the choice between her duties as a mother and a judicial officer. His resignation was not voluntary, it was a compulsion and hence it should be rejected. He deserves to be reinstated.