Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a judicial officer in the Delhi Higher Judicial Services, was accused of sexual harassment by a Junior Judicial Assistant who worked as his Ahlmad. A complaint was submitted to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court on 05.07.2016. The Full Court of the Delhi High Court, in its meeting on 13.07.2016, resolved to suspend the petitioner pending disciplinary proceedings and to forward the complaint to the police. An Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was constituted on 19.07.2016 under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The ICC submitted a preliminary report on 05.11.2016 recommending a disciplinary inquiry. The Full Court then initiated disciplinary proceedings under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, and a charge sheet was issued on 23.02.2017. The ICC conducted a full inquiry and submitted a final report on 09.03.2018, which was served on the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking to quash the resolutions, charge sheet, and inquiry report, alleging violations of the Act and lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court limited its examination to three issues: whether the High Court was the disciplinary authority competent to suspend and initiate proceedings; whether the Full Court's decision was beyond jurisdiction; and whether non-supply of the preliminary report vitiated the proceedings. The Court held that the High Court, under Article 235 of the Constitution, has control over judicial officers and thus had the power to suspend and initiate disciplinary proceedings. The preliminary report was not relied upon for framing charges, so its non-supply did not prejudice the petitioner. The Court declined to entertain other issues as the disciplinary proceedings were still ongoing, leaving the petitioner free to raise them before the appropriate authority. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Authority - High Court's Power under Article 235 - The High Court, as the controlling authority over judicial officers under Article 235 of the Constitution, has the power to place a judicial officer under suspension and initiate disciplinary proceedings, even if the Governor is the formal disciplinary authority under the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970. The Full Court's resolution dated 13.07.2016 to suspend the petitioner and order a disciplinary inquiry was within its jurisdiction. (Paras 9-15) B) Sexual Harassment - Internal Complaints Committee - Preliminary Report - Non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report dated 05.11.2016 to the petitioner does not vitiate the proceedings as the report was not relied upon for framing charges; only the final inquiry report under Section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was required to be supplied. (Paras 16-18) C) Constitutional Law - Article 235 - Control over Subordinate Courts - The High Court's power of control under Article 235 includes the authority to suspend a judicial officer pending disciplinary proceedings, as part of its supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate judiciary. (Paras 9-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court is the disciplinary authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and suspend a judicial officer under the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 and All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969; whether the Full Court's decision to suspend and initiate inquiry was beyond jurisdiction; whether non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report dated 05.11.2016 vitiated the proceedings
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the High Court had jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner and initiate disciplinary proceedings under Article 235 of the Constitution. The non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report did not vitiate the proceedings as it was not relied upon. The Court declined to entertain other issues, leaving them open for the petitioner to raise in the ongoing disciplinary proceedings.
Law Points
- High Court's disciplinary authority over judicial officers under Article 235 of the Constitution
- Applicability of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention
- Prohibition and Redressal) Act
- 2013 to judicial officers
- Non-supply of preliminary inquiry report does not vitiate proceedings if not relied upon
