Judicial officer lost battle to the mother in her: Supreme Court on transfer of Madhya Pradesh district judge

While ordering the reinstatement of a former Madhya Pradesh district judge who had resigned in 2014 after alleging sexual harassment by a High Court judge, the Supreme Court today held that the transfer order that led to her resignation "was squarely covered by malice in law." (Ms X vs Registrar General of Madhya Pradesh HC)..A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai noted in its order,"The petitioner was a Judicial Officer and a mother too. The Judicial Officer in her must have been battling with the mother in her. On one hand, was her career as a Judicial Officer; on the other hand, was the possibility of her daughter’s educational prospects and career coming into jeopardy, if she shifted to the place of posting at Sidhi. A possibility of her mind engrossed with a feeling, that she was subjected to injustice by the very Institution of Judiciary, cannot be ruled away.".Background.The complainant was serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge when she made the sexual harassment allegations against the sitting High Court judge. She was then ordered to be transferred from Gwalior to Sidhi. She prayed for an extension of eight months in Gwalior so that her daughter, who was studying in Class 12, could complete her academic session. However, this request was rejected. A subsequent request for alternative posting to Sehore, Raisen, Dewas or Ujjain so that her daughter could continue with her education, was also denied. This prompted the complainant to tender her resignation on July 15, 2014.Subsequently, she sent a representation to the President of India, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court to probe the circumstances under which she was forced to resign.The issue was ultimately probed by a Judges Inquiry Committee (JIC) headed by then Supreme Court Judge, Justice R Banumathi. The panel found that the allegations of sexual harassment were not proven. However, it concluded that the transfer of the complainant judge was irregular, and opined that she should be reinstated in the interests of justice.However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the administrative side refuse to reinstate her, not once, but twice, even after the apex court asked it to reconsider its decision.This prompted the judge to file the present plea seeking a declaration that her resignation from service was under coercion due to sexual harassment by the High Court judge. She also prayed for reinstatement to service..Judgment in a nutshell.- Transfer order was in contravention of the Transfer Policy and the rejection of her two representations were arbitrary; - Petitioner was entitled for consideration of her case on the ground that her daughter was to appear in the final year of Board Examination;- In a gruesome battle between a mother and a Judicial Officer, the Judicial Officer lost the battle to the mother;- Resignation letter appears to be on account of exasperation and frustration actuated by a thought, that injustice was being meted out to her by the very institution of the judiciary;- The petitioner’s resignation could not be construed to be voluntary..The Court noted that the evidence pointed to the fact that the transfer was effected on the basis of a complaint filed by District & Sessions Judge, Gwalior."It is a different aspect that the JIC had come to a specific finding of fact, that the evidence on record clearly shows that Justice ‘A’ had a role to play in the transfer of the petitioner and the rejection of her two representations. We are therefore of the considered view that the transfer order dated 8th July 2014, would squarely be covered by ‘malice in law’ inasmuch as it was passed without taking into consideration the Guidelines provided in the Transfer Policy but on the basis of unverified allegations made in the complaint made by the then D & SJ, Gwalior.".The Court also found that the rejection of the representations made by the complainant seeking reconsideration of her transfer by the Transfer Committee dated July 11 and 14, 2014 were not valid in law.It was noted that the judge on the Transfer Committee, in his deposition before the Judges Inquiry Committee (JIC), had clearly admitted that he had not gone into the annexures attached with the representation of the petitioner and included particulars of her daughter's important upcoming exams. "Non consideration of the relevant material and consideration of the extraneous material would come into the realm of irrationality. An action which is arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, find that the rejection of the representations of the petitioner dated 9th July 2014 and 11th July 2014, would also not stand the scrutiny of law," the Bench held..While accepting that a judicial officer while discharging his/her duties is expected to be independent, fearless, impassionate and non-impulsive, the Court also said that a judicial officer is also a human being, who could be a father or a mother."The petitioner was a Judicial Officer and a mother too. The Judicial Officer in her must have been battling with the mother in her. On one hand, was her career as a Judicial Officer; on the other hand, was the possibility of her daughter’s educational prospects and career coming into jeopardy, if she shifted to the place of posting at Sidhi....in a gruesome battle between a mother and a judicial officer, the Judicial officer lost the battle to the mother," the judgment reads..Comments were also made on the fact that whenever a judicial officer with a good track record seeks to resign, an attempt is made by the senior judges of the High Court to counsel and persuade them to withdraw the resignation. "Valuable time and money is spent on training of a Judicial Officer. Losing a good Judicial Officer without counselling him/her and without giving him/her an opportunity to introspect and rethink, will not be in the interest of either the Judicial Officer or the Judiciary. We find that it will be in the interest of judiciary that such a practice is followed by all the High Courts."Though the apex court held that it was not possible to observe that the petitioner was forced to resign, it stated that "the circumstances would clearly reveal that they were such, that out of frustration, the petitioner was left with no other alternative.".The Court also rejected the contentions that if it were to hold that the resignation was not voluntary it will open floodgates to similarly situated judicial officers, and that if the decision of the Full Court of the MP High Court is interfered with, it will stigmatize the entire Institution and have catastrophic effects. In parting, the Court stated,"We do hope, that in future, similar facts would never arise for consideration, at least in a lis between a High Court and a Judicial Officer. However, we may remind ourselves of the dictum that law is supreme and no one is above law. It would be apt to reproduce the words of Thomas Fuller, which have been quoted by Lord Denning, “Be ye never so high, the law is above you”.".Senior Advocate Indira Jaising represented the petitioner while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Madhya Pradesh High Court. .[Read Judgment]