SC not to entertain MP judge's plea in sexual harassment case

New Delhi, June 25 The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a petition by a judge from Madhya Pradesh, seeking quashing of show cause notice against him in an alleged case of sexual harassment of a woman officer.

A vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Surya Kant allowed the judge to withdraw the petition, noting that the plea is not a fit case to invoke the Constitution's Article 32.

The petitioner argued that he has an unblemished career spanning over 32 years with sterling record of service, and he is due to superannuate at the end of the year.

"Further, the entire action is visited with arbitrariness, malafide and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice by holding enquiry and or recording statements behind the back of the petitioner at different stages without participation of the petitioner," the plea said.

The plea contended that all these actions have been done at a time when the petitioner is 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," said the plea.

The petitioner said this is a classic case where the facts are speaking for themselves, with the GSICC (Gender Sensitisation Internal Compliant Committee), completely negating the provisions of Section 10 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, by rejecting the application for conciliation 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," the plea said.

The judge moved the top court challenging the issuance of show cause notice by the Principal Registrar of Madhya Pradesh High Court. "In the present case, the GSICC not only submitted its final report dated April 30, 2020 contrary to law recommending action against the petitioner, but it went ahead a step further and did not hesitate to strongly recommend that action be taken against the complainant for not willing to proceed with the inquiry," said the plea.

( With inputs from IANS )