38 C
Punjab
Saturday, May 15, 2021

use promo code WHILENEWS

spot_img

Flirting messages on WhatsApp by a decide to a junior officer draw SC warning | India Information – Instances of India

Must read




NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday made sharp observations on the conduct of a district decide from Madhya Pradesh, who despatched offensive and inappropriate messages to a junior officer and justified this conduct as mere “flirting”.
A former district decide from Madhya Pradesh moved the highest court docket difficult the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court over the sexual harassment allegations made by a junior judicial officer.
Senior advocate Ravindra Shrivastava together with advocate Arjun Garg, representing Madhya Pradesh Excessive Courtroom, learn out several WhatsApp messages despatched by the District Choose to junior girl officer. Shrivastava stated he’s a senior judicial officer; therefore his conduct ought to have been extra applicable with the woman officer.
A bench headed by Chief Justice S. A. Bobde and comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian stated: “WhatsApp messages are fairly offensive and improper. For a decide this conduct with junior officer – not acceptable.” The bench queried that if they’ve some understanding with one another, is it good to go forward? Nonetheless, the bench added that the petitioner has already learnt a lesson and pointed at a settlement between the events.
Shrivastava replied that the lady officer wished a settlement, however the Excessive Courtroom committee probing this matter didn’t settle for it. He added the petitioner has admitted that he was flirting with the woman. “What sort of judicial officer is that this? We do not perceive”, added Shrivastava exclaimed. At this stage, the Chief Justice stated it agrees with Shrivastava’s submissions.
Senior advocate R Balasubramanian, representing the district decide, submitted that the woman officer has withdrawn her grievance below the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, due to this fact the disciplinary proceedings by the excessive court docket should not maintainable.
The bench queried Balasubramanian, the lady might have withdrawn the grievance, however the bigger query is that whether or not the inquiry ought to be carried out by the excessive court docket.
Balasubramanian, reiterated that the retried judicial officer instructed the excessive court docket that the woman officer withdrew her grievance, but departmental proceedings have been initiated towards his shopper.
Chief Justice famous he might have thought that it’s a non-public dialog, and the matter earlier than the gender sensitisation committee got here to an finish after the woman declined to take part. The bench reiterated: “Excessive court docket desires to proceed, and it’s obligation sure to take action restricted to disciplinary proceedings. What’s there in legislation which might forestall excessive court docket proceedings?”
Shrivastava submitted that the excessive court docket is continuing with the matter even after the retirement of the petitioner, because it wished to “ship a robust message”.
Balasubramanian argued that these costs had been levelled throughout his shopper’s promotion simply to spoil his probabilities of being promoted. The Chief Justice replied that this phenomenon is ubiquitous. “All types of allegations come throughout promotion. We can’t generalise it. On this case there may be allegation”, noticed the bench.
Concluding the listening to, the Chief Justice stated, ” we’re more likely to make some sweeping observations on this case, you withdraw and contest the enquiry.” After an in depth listening to within the matter, the highest court docket adjourned the matter for per week.



Source link



More articles

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest article

%d bloggers like this: