LexDR. P. S. MALIK versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
957
DR. P. S. MALIK
v.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.705 of 2018)
AUGUST 21, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
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
[2019] 12 S.C.R. 957
957
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
958
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
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 non-
supply 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. TheExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.