LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Dr. P.S. Malik v. High Court of Delhi

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2019 INSC 936Decided 21 Aug 2019
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 705 of 2018
Justice Ashok Bhushan · Justice Navin Sinha

Background

The petitioner, a judicial officer in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, faced a sexual harassment complaint from a court staff member, following which the Delhi High Court's Full Court suspended him and set up an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to inquire under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. After a preliminary report recommended a disciplinary inquiry, a charge memo was issued, and the ICC eventually submitted a final inquiry report. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking to quash the Full Court's resolutions, the ICC's proceedings, the charge-sheet, and the inquiry report, mainly arguing that he had wrongly been denied a copy of the preliminary inquiry report.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the preliminary report dated 05.11.2016 contained no findings on the allegations against the petitioner, it merely recommended that a disciplinary inquiry be initiated, and was distinct from the final "Inquiry Report" under Section 13 of the 2013 Act (which was the report actually furnished to him). Since the charge memo did not even rely on or refer to the preliminary report, the Court held that non-supply of that preliminary document caused the petitioner no prejudice and did not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. The Court limited itself to the specific procedural issues raised, leaving all other factual and legal pleas open for the petitioner to raise before the appropriate disciplinary authority, and dismissed the writ petition, subject to that liberty.

Lesson Learnt

In workplace sexual-harassment inquiries, a preliminary report that only recommends starting an inquiry (without findings) is legally different from the final inquiry report that decides the allegations, and failure to supply the preliminary report does not by itself invalidate the disciplinary process if the final charges don't rely on it.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case