Constitution of India – Arts.233 and 235 – Petitioner was working as Additional District Judge at Dwarka, New Delhi –Written complaints submitted against the petitioner, to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi, by a lady Junior Judicial Assistant who worked as Ahlmad in the petitioner’s Court from 18.05.2015 to 18.05.2016 alleging sexual harassment at work place– On 13.07.2016, the petitioner was placed under suspension – Internal Complaints Committee constituted – Preliminary Report submitted to the Full Court of the High Court opining that disciplinary inquiry be held against the petitioner – Full Court resolved to hold the inquiry – Inquiry Report dated 09.03.2018 submitted by the Committee – Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia submitting that there being an Inquiry Report by Internal Complaints Committee as envisaged by ss.11 and 13 of the 2013 Act, the High Court could not have decided to initiate the inquiry or suspend the petitioner – Held: Petitioner is member of Judicial Service for which disciplinary authority is the High Court – The word “control” occurring in Art.235 means not only the general superintendence of the working of the Courts but includes the disciplinary control of the judicial officers, i.e., the district judges and judges subordinate to him – High Court can initiate disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers – Power to suspend the judicial officer vests in the High Court– Under the 2013 Act, complaint mechanism and mechanism for constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee, mechanism to inquire the complaint, are all for protection of dignity and welfare of women at workplace – Provisions of ss.11,
13 in no manner affect the control of the High Court u/Art.235 with respect to judicial officers– Full Court of the High Court is in no manner precluded from initiating disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner and placing him under suspension on being satisfied that sufficient material existed – No error in the decision of the Full Court dated 13.07.2016 – Further, submission of the petitioner that due to non-supply of Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016, the proceedings have been vitiated, not accepted – Only limited issues as pressed by the petitioner have been considered – Disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner still underway – It is open for the petitioner to raise all pleas of facts and law before the appropriate authority – Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – Chapters II, IV & V – ss.4, 11 and 13 – All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 – r.8.
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – ss.11, 13 and 18 – Complaint of sexual harassment at work place made against the petitioner, judicial officer in Delhi Higher Judicial Services, by an employee in his Court – Present writ petition filed by the petitioner inter alia submitting that copy of the Preliminary Inquiry Report not being supplied to him, he has been denied right to appeal – Held: Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016 did not contain any findings on allegations made against the petitioner – It only opined that inquiry should be held – Even u/s.11(1) in the second proviso, the only contemplation is to make available a copy of the findings – Thus, the report in which there are no findings, parties are not entitled to have the copy – Inquiry Report referred in s.13 is the Report which has been submitted by Internal Complaints Committee after completion of the inquiry – Inquiry Report by Internal Complaints Committee dated 09.03.2018 was admittedly supplied to the petitioner– Right of appeal given against the recommendation made u/s.13(2) or (3) are appealable u/s.18– Thus, the right of appeal is given to an aggrieved person only when report is submitted u/s.13 to the employer – No prejudice caused to the petitioner by nonsupply of Report dated 05.11.2016. Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Part VI of the Constitution of India deals with “The States”. Chapter VI contains heading “Subordinate Courts”. Articles 233 and 235 of the Constitution of India refer to two distinct powers. The first is power of appointment, posting and promotion of District Judges and second is power of control over Judicial Officers of the State. The word “control” occurring in Article 235 means not only the general superintendence of the working of the Courts but includes the disciplinary control of the judicial officers, i.e., the district judges and judges subordinate to him. The word “control” used in Article 235 has been held by Supreme Court to be disciplinary control. Disciplinary authority with regard to judicial officers is the High Court and it is the High Court, which can initiate the disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers. The High Court can also suspend a member of the judiciary. Insofar as dismissal or removal is concerned, the said orders are required to be passed by the Governor on the recommendation of the High Court. The fact that the orders of dismissal or removal are issued by the approval of the Governor in no manner denude the disciplinary control of the High Court. [Paras 9, 14 and 16] [967-D-E; 971-A; 972-G-H]
1.2 The petitioner in the present case is a member of Judicial Service for which disciplinary authority is the High Court. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Chapter II of Act, 2013 deals with constitution of Internal Complaints Committee. Chapter IV deals with complaint. In Chapter IV, one of the sections is Section 11, which deals with inquiry into complaint. Chapter V deals with inquiry into complaint and Section
13 deals with inquiry report. The Act, 2013 is a parliamentary legislation, the preamble of which outlines the necessity of legislation. [Paras 18-21] [974-A-C; 975-B; 976-B-C]
1.3 The provisions of the Act, complaint mechanism and mechanism for constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee, mechanism to inquire the complaint are all for protection of dignity and welfare of women at workplace. The provisions of Sections
11 and 13 in no manner affect the control of the High Court under Article 235, which it has with respect to judicial officers. The power to suspend the judicial officer vests in the High Court. The Full Court of the High court is in no manner precluded from initiating disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner and placing the petitioner under suspension on being satisfied that sufficient material existed. The High Court in its meeting dated 19.07.2016 has resolved to send the complaint of the employee to the Internal Complaints Committee and the Internal Complaints Committee having opined that inquiry need to be held, further steps were taken in accordance with Act, 2013. There is no error in the decision of the Full Court dated 13.07.2016 to suspend the petitioner and initiate the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner. Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016 did not contain any findings on allegations made against the petitioner, Preliminary Inquiry Report only opined that inquiry should be held. The Inquiry Report, which has been referred to in Section
13 is an Inquiry Report, which has been submitted by Internal Complaints Committee after completion of the inquiry. In the present case, the Inquiry Report by Internal Complaints Committee is dated 09.03.2018, which has been admittedly supplied to the petitioner, the right of appeal given against the recommendation made under sub-section(2) or sub-section(3) of Section 13 are appealable under Section 18 of the Act. Thus, the right of appeal is given to an aggrieved person only when report is submitted under Section 13 to the employer. Section 13(3) contemplates the report of Internal Complaints Committee when it “arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has been proved”. 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 the report in which there are no findings, parties are not entitled to have the copy. High Court in its counter affidavit has pleaded that the Report dated 05.11.2016 was not a report containing any findings against the petitioner rather only opinion was expressed that disciplinary inquiry be initiated against the petitioner. No prejudice can be held to be caused to the petitioner by non-supply of the Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. The copy of memo of charge dated 23.02.2017 has been brought on the record, which also clearly indicates that the charge memo does not refer to Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. Thus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by non-supply of Report dated 05.11.2016. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that due to non-supply of Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016, the proceedings have been vitiated, not accepted. With regard to charge memo dated 23.02.2017, inquiry conducted by Internal Complaints Committee culminating into Report dated 09.03.2018, it is open for the petitioner to raise all pleas of facts and law before the appropriate authority. This Court has only considered limited issues as pressed by the petitioner. Apart from above, all questions and issues are left open to both the parties.[Paras 22, 24- 26] [976-D-F; 978-A, E-H; 979-A-C]
State of West Bengal and Another v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi AIR 1966 SC 447 : [1966] 1 SCR 771; Registrar (Admn.) High Court of Orissa, Cuttack v. Sisir Kanta Satapathy (Dead) by LRs. and Another (1999) 7 SCC
725 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 473 – followed.
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Govt.(Home) v. Promod Kumar IPS and Another AIR 2018 SC 4060 – held inapplicable.
Baradakanta Mishra v. High Court of Orissa and Another (1976) 3 SCC 327 : [1976] Suppl. SCR 561; Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) Through LRs. and Others v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2011) 10 SCC 1 : [2011] 12 SCR 496 – relied on. Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. L.V.A. Dixitulu and Others, (1979) 2 SCC 34 : [1979] 1 SCR
26 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.