NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented development, a Madhya Pradesh woman additional district judge who had resigned in July 2014 protesting her “illegal” transfer from Gwalior to Sidhi (424 km away) soon after she accused a sitting high court judge of sexual harassment appears set to get her job back without losing seniority despite a five-year hiatus in service.

A Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant asked Madhya Pradesh High Court to consider taking her back after her counsel Indira Jaising said the woman judge had moved on from the harassment incident as the HC judge had retired and that she did not claim back wages but wanted her seniority to be maintained. The CJI even suggested that she could be shifted out of MP judiciary to a neighbouring state after being reinstated. The woman judicial officer agreed.

Appearing for MP HC, senior advocate Ravindra Srivastava said the woman judge had resigned voluntarily and that her resignation was accepted by the HC after a full court meeting. It was reconsidered and the HC full court had refused to allow her to take back the resignation. Jaising stepped in and said the judges’ panel which inquired into the sexual harassment charges had found that she was transferred in violation of the HC’s transfer policy.

A judges’ panel had inquired into the sexual harassment complaint but did not find clinching evidence to prove the charges. But it had termed her transfer from Gwalior to Sidhi ‘illegal’, and said the circumstances were such that she had no option but to resign and “there was total lack of human face in ordering the transfer”. It had recommended her reinstatement, Jaising said while reading out from the inquiry report.

The CJI-led bench asked Srivastava to convince the HC on the administrative side to reinstate her. “Whatever it is, even if she was transferred validly, she would have completed her tenure of three years at the new place and would have been due for a fresh transfer. We want the issue to be brought to a decent conclusion,” the CJI said.

When Srivastava said if she was reinstated, then it would appear that the HC was incorrect in transferring her, the CJI said, “It would appear worse if we pass an order directing her reinstatement. The issue involves a judicial officer and high court. The situation has changed drastically (acknowledging that the HC judge in question had retired) and no one will be affected.”

Justice Kant said, “It is a simple issue. She will submit an application seeking withdrawal of her resignation and the HC (on the administrative side) will allow it.” The bench allowed Srivastava to discuss the suggested solution with the MP HC and report back on March 18.

During the hearing, the SC also told the MP HC that once it reinstated her as additional district judge, the SC could order her shifting to a neighbouring state judiciary. It also asked the former additional district judge to give her choice of state. She said she was ready to shift to any north Indian state after reinstatement. Jaising told the court that the woman judicial officer had outstanding ACRs throughout her career till the incident happened leading to her transfer to Sidhi.

