New Delhi, Jan 27 (PTI) The Madhya Pradesh High Court Thursday told the Supreme Court that the former woman judicial officer, who resigned following an inquiry into her allegations of sexual harassment against the High Court judge, cannot allege she was compelled to resign four years after her complaint was found to be untrue.

The apex court is hearing the petition filed by the woman judicial officer seeking her reinstatement.

Also Read | Supreme Court Says Even Minor Accident Due to Drunken Driving Should Not Be Treated Leniently.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Registrar General of the high court, told the top court that the ground of "hostile work environment" which allegedly forced her to tender resignation is being raised four years after she alleged sexual harassment.

"Sexual harassment against any woman is a very serious issue, the allegation not being found true is also a very serious issue for administration of any institution," Mehta told a bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai.

Also Read | Union Budget 2022-23: Rise in Old-Age Pension, Re-Engaging Seniors Among Demands.

The Solicitor General said that the petitioner's case was not a case of solitary transfer.

"There were around 27 judicial officers who were transferred depending upon the exigencies of the service. For everyone, it was a mid-term transfer. It would be too much to believe that the high court on the administrative side was so pliable that for transferring one officer it disturbed its entire infrastructure," he submitted.

The law officer was responding to the submission of senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioner, who stated that the resignation of the judicial officer was coerced as she was compelled to resign and "to choose between her duties towards her daughter and her career."

"Her resignation wasn't one voluntarily given, it was coerced and hence is a deemed dismissal. She is entitled to be reinstated," she submitted.

Jaising submitted that the representation of the judicial officer to let her stay till the time her daughter completes 12th class was rejected.

"Her second representation to at least transfer her from Class A to B city where there were colleges for her daughter was rejected," she said.

Jaising argued that a letter of resignation must be voluntary and if an element of voluntariness is missing then it cannot be called a letter of resignation.

"Here there was coercion and she was compelled to choose between career and mother duties," she said.

She further submitted that there was a bias against the woman judicial officer.

"The district judge engineers a complaint against her behind her back and this led to a case for the transfer. The high court has only violated its policy regarding transfer in this case," she said.

"This order of transfer was an unconstitutional restriction on her right to work. I place my case on constitutional principles. This is a classic case where a woman has been compelled to choose between being a mother and member of this judicial family," she said.

Mehta said that the entire plea proceeds as if the transfer order has been challenged which is not the case.

"My friend can succeed only if it's proven that there was a hostile work environment for her or she was compelled to resign. This case will have important implications in the administration of the judiciary at the district level. The order of transfer which could have been challenged on grounds raised now is not even subject matter this plea or earlier ones," Mehta said.

The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on February 1.

The high court had earlier told the apex court that it has declined to reinstate the former woman judicial officer and an “amicable solution of the matter is not possible”.

It had also said that the ex-judicial officer's request for transferring her to Rajasthan or Haryana from Madhya Pradesh cannot be accepted since the high court is not agreeable to reinstating her at all.

The high court judge, against whom sexual harassment complaint was made by her, was later given a clean chit in December 2017 by a Rajya Sabha-appointed panel that had probed the allegations.

The woman, in her plea, has said that the high court had ignored the categorical finding in the report of the Judges Inquiry Committee dated December 15, 2017, terming the petitioner's resignation dated July 15, 2014, from her post of Additional District Judge "unbearable circumstances having no other option".

The plea has added that the Judges Inquiry Committee had opined that "the petitioner be reinstated in service since her resignation was tendered under coercion".

A motion of impeachment was admitted against the high court judge after 58 members of Rajya Sabha supported the woman's case.

The report of the panel comprising then Supreme Court judge R Bhanumathi, Justice Manjula Chellur (then Bombay High Court judge), and jurist K K Venugopal (now Attorney General for India) had given a clean chit to the high court judge and was tabled before the Rajya Sabha on December 15, 2017.

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)