New Delhi, October 18
The Supreme Court docket has refused to intrude with the Uttarakhand Excessive Court docket’s interim order dismissing a senior judicial officer’s plea for altering the inquiry officer, who was analyzing costs of sexual harassment in opposition to him, over alleged bias.
A bench of justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi rejected the plea of the extra district decide, saying that he can elevate the bottom of bias even after the inquiry in opposition to him will get over.
“We’re not inclined to intrude with the order handed by the excessive courtroom. The Particular Depart Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending software(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
“Nonetheless, the excessive courtroom is requested to lastly eliminate the writ petition when the matter is listed on October 31, together with modification software,” the bench stated in its current order.
Senior advocate P S Patwalia, who appeared for the petitioner together with advocate Sachin Sharma, argued that his consumer has an excellent document and these allegations have been levelled to embarrass him.
He claimed day after his plea for a change of inquiry officer was taken up for listening to by the excessive courtroom, the inquiry officer had closed the defence and began proceedings ex-parte.
The bench stated that it’s going to not intrude with the inquiry however can ask the excessive courtroom to resolve on the plea and move the order.
“When you’ve got a great case on bias, you’ll succeed. You possibly can argue on the purpose of bias, even after the inquiry will get over”, the bench stated.
The extra district decide in his plea has contended that the inquiry officer, who’s a sitting decide of the excessive courtroom, can also be a member of the committee that had beneficial disciplinary inquiry in opposition to him, and any train so carried out can’t be stated to be honest.
He claimed that the excessive courtroom on October eight, with out contemplating the details and circumstances of the case, by a non-speaking order gave a prima facie discovering that it was too late for making the allegation of bias in opposition to the presiding officer and had rejected the keep software.
“That it’s a gross case of violation of the precept of pure justice whereby the petitioner, who’s a member of Increased Judicial Service, imparted justice with none spot on his profession for the final 16 years, having excellent ACR all through, is now himself rattling for the justice,” his plea stated.
The plea sought a keep on the order of the excessive courtroom in addition to on the disciplinary proceedings in opposition to the petitioner.
The plea stated that in 2017, the petitioner was transferred from the submit of registrar of the Uttarakhand Excessive Court docket and was posted as First Extra District Choose and Session Choose, Haridwar.
It stated on February 1, 2018, the complainant was directed to hitch/connect with the officer of the petitioner as a contractual worker and simply after working for 2 days on February 1 and a couple of, he was directed to hitch at another place.
To the shock and shock of the petitioner, he was knowledgeable after being suspended and charge-sheeted that the contractual worker had made a “false and frivolous grievance, dated March 19, 2018, to the district Choose Haridwar, alleging therein that the petitioner had tried to take undue benefit and sexually harassed him on February 1 and a couple of”.
The plea contended that “this naked reality itself exhibits that complainant was planted by somebody having grudges in opposition to the petitioner to defame/disable him from performing his official duties”.
The petition claimed that the complainant and his mom, of their cross-examination carried out earlier than the Inquiry Officer, had admitted that they filed the grievance dated March 19, 2018 solely as a result of they have been promised that the complainant’s job can be regularized.
“Therefore, the complete disciplinary continuing is nothing however a gross abuse of technique of legislation,” it stated, including that on September 21, the inquiry officer had even refused to permit the complainant to withdraw his grievance.
The plea additionally stated that the inquiry officer had dismissed the recusal software dated September 21 filed by the petitioner. — PTI