1. Judicial officer challenges disciplinary proceedings and suspension for alleged sexual harassment, citing non-compliance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 and jurisdictional errors. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 905
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
P.S. MALIK – PETITIONER
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR – RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITOIN (CIVIL) NO.705 OF 2018
Decided On : 21-08-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) High Court alone is sole authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Subordinate Judicial Officers or to impose various punishments.
(2) Provisions of Sections 11 and 13 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 in no manner affect control of High Court under Article 235 of Constitution which it has with respect to judicial officers.
(1) High Court alone is sole authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Subordinate Judicial Officers or to impose various punishments.
(2) Provisions of Sections 11 and 13 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 in no manner affect control of High Court under Article 235 of Constitution which it has with respect to judicial officers.
Subject
JUDICIAL REVIEW - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Act Referred
ALL INDIA SERVICE DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES: R.8(4)
ALL INDIAN SERVICES DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES: R.8
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.32, Art.14, Art.21, Art.235, Art.233, Art.311, Art.239(a)(a)(4)
DELHI HIGHER JUDICIAL SERVICES RULES: R.26(a)
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.509
SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT WORKPLACE PREVENTION, PROHIBITION AND REDRESSAL ACT: S.4, S.18
ALL INDIAN SERVICES DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES: R.8
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.32, Art.14, Art.21, Art.235, Art.233, Art.311, Art.239(a)(a)(4)
DELHI HIGHER JUDICIAL SERVICES RULES: R.26(a)
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.509
SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT WORKPLACE PREVENTION, PROHIBITION AND REDRESSAL ACT: S.4, S.18
Headnote
(a) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – Sections 11 and 13 – All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 – Rule 8 – Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 – Disciplinary proceedings against Judicial Officer – Allegation of sexual harassment of Junior Judicial Assistant – Disciplinary proceedings against petitioner being still underway, having not yet taken any final shape, most of issues which are sought to be raised by writ petitioner in this writ petition can very well be canvassed and pressed before in disciplinary proceedings – Petitioner is a member of Judicial Service for which disciplinary authority is High Court – Provisions of Act, complaint mechanism and mechanism for constitution of Internal Complaints Committee, mechanism to inquire complaint are all for protection of dignity and welfare of women at workplace – Provisions of Sections 11 and 13 in no manner affect control of High Court under Article 235 of Constitution which it has with respect to judicial officers – Power to suspend judicial officer vests in High Court – Full Court of High court is in no manner precluded from initiating disciplinary inquiry against petitioner and placing petitioner under suspension on being satisfied that sufficient material existed – There is no error in decision of Full Court to suspend petitioner and initiate inquiry proceedings against petitioner – No prejudice can be held to be caused to petitioner by non-supply of Preliminary Inquiry Report – It is open for petitioner to raise all pleas of facts and law before appropriate authority. (Paras 7, 18, 22, 25 and 26)
(b) Constitution of India – Article 235 – Control over Subordinate Judiciary – High Court alone is sole authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Subordinate Judicial Officers or to impose various punishments – Although, with regard to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or termination of services of judicial officers, High Court becomes recommending authority and it is Governor who is to issue orders – Fact that orders of dismissal or removal are issued by approval of Governor in no manner denude disciplinary control of High Court. (Paras 13 and 16)
Facts of the Case:
Petitioner, A Judicial Officer in Delhi Higher Judicial Services, against whom disciplinary proceedings alleging sexual harassment is underway, has filed this writ petition. Disciplinary proceedings against petitioner being still underway, having not yet taken any final shape.
Findings of Court:
It is not the case of any of the parties that the report of the Committee dated 05.11.2016 is the report where allegation against the petitioner has been proved. Even under Section 11(1) in the second proviso, the only contemplation is to make available a copy of the findings. Thus, when report in which there are no findings, parties are not entitled to have the copy.
Result : Writ Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Varinder Kumar Sharma, Parul Sharma, Yugal Kishore Prasad, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):P.S. Narsimha, Binu Tamta, Dhruv Tamta, Rahul G. Tanwani, Sindoora VNL, , Advocates
For the Petitioner(s):Varinder Kumar Sharma, Parul Sharma, Yugal Kishore Prasad, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):P.S. Narsimha, Binu Tamta, Dhruv Tamta, Rahul G. Tanwani, Sindoora VNL, , Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends the High Court lacked disciplinary jurisdiction, violated the 2013 Act's procedure, and vitiated proceedings by not supplying the preliminary inquiry report. (Para 4 )
3. The High Court possesses exclusive disciplinary control over subordinate judiciary under Article 235, and preliminary reports without findings need not be supplied to the respondent. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
4. Disciplinary control under Article 235 includes the power to suspend and inquire; preliminary reports used for prima facie determination do not require disclosure to the delinquent. (Para 9 , 12 , 14 , 25 )
5. Writ petition dismissed, leaving the petitioner open to raise factual and legal pleas before the appropriate disciplinary authority. (Para 26 )
6. Does the High Court have the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and suspend judicial officers of the subordinate judiciary?
Yes, under Article 235 of the Constitution, the High Court has exclusive disciplinary control, which includes the power to hold inquiries and suspend officers, subject only to the Governor's power regarding dismissal or removal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
7. Does the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 override the High Court's disciplinary control under Article 235?
No, the Act's mechanisms for protecting women and redressing complaints do not affect the High Court's constitutional control over judicial officers, including the power to suspend and initiate inquiries. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
8. Must a preliminary inquiry report be supplied to the respondent in disciplinary proceedings?
No, if the report is a preliminary investigation used only to satisfy the authority that a prima facie case exists and contains no final findings, it does not need to be supplied to the delinquent. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. The petitioner, A Judicial Officer in Delhi Higher Judicial Services, against whom disciplinary proceedings alleging sexual harassment is underway, has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for following reliefs:-
“a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the resolution of Respondent No.1, the Full Court of Delhi High Court dated 13.07.2016 inToto, cited in the report dated 09.03.2018 (Annexure-P-12) and also all subsequent resolutions passed by Full Court of Delhi High Court dated 19.07.2016, 16.11.2016, 23.02.2017, 06.07.2017 or on any other date in relation to this enquiry, cited in the report dated 09.03.2018 (Annexure-P-12) as the same are arbitrary, without any jurisdiction and violative of the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013, Art. 14 and Art. 21 of the Constitution of India;
b. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings of ICC the Respondent number 2 as held by it under the Provisions of the Act of 2013.
c. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Charge sheet dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure-P-7) issued by the Respondent No.1 on the recommendation of the Respondent No.2;
d. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the report dated 9.3.2018 (Annexure-P-12) of the ICC, the 2nd Respondent herein along with all the proceedings of the Respondents leading thereto;
e. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter of e Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 15.05.2018 (Annexure-P-11) issued by Respondent No.1; and
f. pass any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice.”
2. Brief facts necessary for deciding this writ petition are:-
2.1 The petitioner has been working as Additional District Judge at Dwarka, New Delhi. On 05.07.2016, a written complaint was submitted against the petitioner by a lady, Junior Judicial Assistant (hereinafter referred to as “employee”) alleging sexual harassment at work place. The complaint was addressed to the Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi. The Junior Judicial Assistant was working as Ahlmad in the Court of the petitioner w.e.f. 18.05.2015. She continued to work in that capacity till 18.05.2016. Another complaint dated 11.07.2016 was submitted by the employee to the Chief Justice. Complaint submitted by the employee came for consideration before the Full Court of the High Court on 13.07.2016, which resolved as under:-
i. The Judicial Officer be placed under suspension with immediate effect pending disciplinary proceeding contemplated against him.
ii. The Registrar General will forward the complaint dated 05.07.2016 to SHO of the concerned Police Station for appropriate action in accordance with law under intimation to this Court.
iii. Registry to take steps in anticipation of the confirmation of the Minutes.
2.2 The Full Court of the Delhi High Court by further resolution dated 19.07.2016 resolved to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee consisting of five members to inquire into the allegation of sexual harassment made against the petitioner. The petitioner as well as the employee appeared before the Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter referred to as “Committee”). The petitioner was suspended by order dated 13.07.2016 pending disciplinary proceedings. The employee further submitted a detailed statement dated 28.07.2016 before the Committee. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Committee on 02.09.2016. On 19.09.2016, the Committee interacted with both the parties separately. On 05.11.2016, the Committee submitted a Preliminary Report to the Full Court. By its Report dated 05.11.2016, the Committee opined that a disciplinary inquiry be held against the petitioner. Full Court of the High Court in its meeting dated 16.11.2016 resolved th
