New Delhi: Amidst the #MeToo campaign by victims of sexual harassment, the Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the registrar general of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and others on a petition filed by former woman judicial officer seeking reinstatement in service.
The additional district judge from Madhya Pradesh resigned after leveling sexual harassment charges against Justice (retd.) S.K. Gangele of the high court in 2014 but the probe held that charges are not proved.
A bench of Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan sought the response in six weeks after hearing senior counsel Indira Jaising, who submitted that the effective relief sought is for restoration in service with due seniority.
The former additional district judge had alleged that her resignation amounted to an act of “constructive termination”, claiming that she was in fact forced to put in her papers as a consequence of her being unlawfully and in a mala fide manner transferred to a conflict area for not bowing to the immoral demands put forth by her superior.
She had alleged sexual harassment by Justice Gangele in 2014 and had filed a detailed complaint with the then Chief Justice of India, R.M. Lodha, and senior judges of the Apex Court after resigning from her post.
A three-member judicial committee headed by Justice Vikramajit Sen was then set up in April 2015 by Rajya Sabha Chairman Hamid Ansari to look into the allegations. The inquiry panel was set up in 2015 after 58 members of the Rajya Sabha, gave a notice to move a motion to impeach the HC judge.
Thereafter, with Justice Sen’s retirement, a panel, comprising Justices R. Banumathi, Manjula Chellur (retired Chief Justice of Bombay high court) and senior advocate K.K Venugopal had, in December last year, found that the charges were “not proved” and had termed Justice Gangele’s conduct to be a part of routine district administration/exercise of supervisory power by the High Court.
The panel said the woman judicial officer fell victim to wrong impressions and that the MP high court showed lack of human face in transferring her mid-term. Since the complainant lady judicial officer was also forced to resign after her transfer to a remote naxal-affected location at a time when her daughter was to sit for board examination, the committee was of the view that she should be reinstated if she is interested in joining back the service.
In her petition, the judicial officer said she had no other option than to submit her resignation since her elder daughter was pursuing Board XII examination and that she could not accept the transfer. Relying upon the findings of the panel on her transfer, the petitioner sought reinstatement with consequent seniority.
