On Thursday, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed by a District Judge from Madhya Pradesh seeking to quash Show Cause Notices issued to him in relation to Sexual Harassment allegations.

The Court reasoned that it is not a case fit for invoking Article 32 jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and has asked the Judge to approach Madhya Pradesh High Court for the same.

The petitioner, in his plea, has sought to quash a report prepared by the Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaint Committee (GSICC) in relation to the sexual harassment complaint against him as well as the show cause notice issued based on this report.

He claimed in the Court that he has had an unblemished career of over 32-years with sterling record of service. He further alleged that the entire process against him is vitiated on account of the same being done without his participation and behind his back and thus against the principles of natural justice. He so asserted that the proceedings deserve to be quashed.

The petitioner Judge further argued that the action was taken against him when the he was at the fag end of his service and may be considered for elevation. He averted:

“All these actions have been done at a time when the petitioner is in the zone of consideration for being considered for elevation. The action has apparently been kept pending for last more than two years with a view to harm the career prospects of the petitioner at a time when he is in the zone of consideration.”

There has been a lapse on the part of the GSICC, the petitioner argues. In this regard, he says that the provision of Section 10 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 have been overlooked.

He mentioned that an application for Conciliation was made by the complainant and the same was rejected by the committee in violation of Section 10 adding:

“The GSICC acted as if it is a Court of Law by rejecting the said application where as, it is mandated in law that it shall record a settlement once a conciliation application is submitted by the complainant. The GSICC/ICC (Internal Complaint Committee) being creation of a statute is bound by the provisions of the Act and it cannot traverse beyond as if it is a Court of law.”

He stressed that once an application for conciliation has been made, the GSICC is not empowered to proceed with the inquiry, and despite that, the GSICC proceeded to formulate a final report against the petitioner and also went on to strongly recommended action to be taken against the complainant for not willing to proceed with the inquiry.

He submitted that not only is the dismissal of the conciliation application unsustainable in law but the action of the GSICC to proceed with the final report is also in violation of the statutory framework. He added that the factual aspects are also highlighted by the petitioner who says that while GSICC drafted its report, it found that the charges of sexual harassment were not proved. However, the committee still recommended disciplinary action against the petitioner which is 'self-contradictory.'

Due to the above facts, the Judge sought the quashing of the Show Cause Notices issued to him by the Registrar of the High Court based on the final report submitted by the GSICC in the case and also directions for recording the details pertaining to the settlement and the conciliation application filed by the complainant while relieving him from all consequences arising out of the Show Cause notices issued to him.

 

Picture Source :