Nearly three years after a video allegedly showing a Delhi judge in a compromising position with a female staff member went viral, a departmental inquiry has cleared the woman of any wrongdoing.

The inquiry officer (of the rank of District Judge) concluded that the department failed to establish that the woman, working as Senior Personal Assistant to the judicial officer, was seen in any objectionable position in the judge’s chamber, committed any immoral act, or violated service conduct rules.

“In the facts and circumstances, in my humble opinion, the Department has failed to establish that the Delinquent Official Ms **** was seen in objectionable condition with his Presiding Officer in his chamber or otherwise. The Department has further failed to establish that she committed any immoral act or entered into any sexual activity with her Presiding Officer or with anyone else during office duty timings,” the inquiry concluded. 

 It added, 

“No misconduct or immoral act, subversive to the discipline is established against her within the meaning of Rule 3 C of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 read with Rule 42 of Delhi District Courts Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2012.”

The video had gone viral on social networking platforms in late 2022. The woman had petitioned the High Court, which ordered the blocking of the posts. 

In March 2024, an inquiry was initiated against the official. The department said that her engaging in sexual activity with the presiding officer amounts to a gross immoral act, subversive of discipline, constituting gross misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3C of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, read with rule 42 of the Delhi District Courts Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service), Rules, 2012. 

However, she argued that Rule 3C does not apply in the case because it relates to sexual harassment of women. Further, she said that no specific date or time of the alleged incident is given, there are no direct witnesses and that the video is fabricated. 

It was stated that the forensic report in the case is not from an accredited laboratory and no evidence has been presented about who recorded the video and how it reached the authorities. 

After considering the case, the inquiry officer ruled that the department failed to prove any charge against her. 

“…she is entitled for exoneration from all the charges alleged during this inquiry,” it concluded. 

Bar & Bench reached out to the officer’s counsel, Advocate Ashish Dixit, for a comment. He said that the enquiry proceedings are confidential, and he is bound by confidentiality.