Summary
The Court rejected limited jurisdictional objections to disciplinary proceedings against a Delhi judicial officer accused of workplace sexual harassment. The High Court’s constitutional disciplinary control authorised suspension and initiation of inquiry; the 2013 workplace statute did not remove that power. Non-supply of a preliminary report recommending inquiry caused no prejudice on these facts. Challenges to the charges, regular inquiry and final inquiry report were left open before the appropriate authority.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could suspend the judicial officer and initiate disciplinary proceedings notwithstanding the workplace sexual-harassment statute.
- Whether non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report vitiated proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Sections 11, 13 and 18, Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013The inquiry and report provisions did not displace constitutional disciplinary control. The preliminary opinion to hold inquiry was distinguished from findings after regular inquiry, which had been supplied. (¶ 19–25)
Held
- Article 235 control included initiation of disciplinary proceedings and suspension of subordinate judicial officers. The distinction between the High Court’s disciplinary role and the Governor’s role in specified final penalties did not deprive the High Court of inquiry or suspension powers. (¶ 9–18)
- The 2013 Act’s protective complaint and inquiry mechanisms did not preclude the Full Court from suspension and initiation of inquiry on sufficient material. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the challenged resolution. (¶ 19–22)
- The preliminary report merely recommended a disciplinary inquiry and contained no findings against the officer; the charge memo did not refer to it, and the regular inquiry report was supplied. Non-supply of that preliminary document caused no demonstrated prejudice and did not vitiate proceedings. (¶ 23–25)
- The Court confined itself to the specified threshold issues. All other factual and legal challenges to the charge memo, committee proceedings and regular inquiry report remained available to both parties before the appropriate authority. (¶¶ 7–8, 26)
Result
Writ petition dismissed subject to liberty to raise the remaining factual and legal pleas before the appropriate authority. No determination of the sexual-harassment allegations or of the reserved challenges to the regular inquiry and report.