<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to consider a plea by a district judge of Madhya Pradesh against a show-cause notice issued to him for alleged sexual harassment of a civil judge.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Surya Kant asked petitioner Sambhoo Singh Raghuvanshi to avail his remedy by approaching the Madhya Pradesh High Court, saying Article 32 (writ) petition can't be entertained by the court.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the petitioner, preferred to withdraw the plea.</p>.<p>The petitioner, who is set to superannuate by the end of this year, asked the court to call for all records including inquiry report of March 20, 2018, by the district judge, Devas and show cause notice issued on November 29, 2019, by the principal registrar of the High Court. He contended that the action initiated against him was mala fide, illegal and arbitrary and without the sanction.</p>.<p>He claimed that the Gender Sensitisation Internal Complaint Committee, in his case, completely negated the provisions of Section 10 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, by rejecting an application for conciliation submitted by the complainant. The complaint against the petitioner was made a woman judicial officer on March 7, 2018.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to consider a plea by a district judge of Madhya Pradesh against a show-cause notice issued to him for alleged sexual harassment of a civil judge.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Surya Kant asked petitioner Sambhoo Singh Raghuvanshi to avail his remedy by approaching the Madhya Pradesh High Court, saying Article 32 (writ) petition can't be entertained by the court.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the petitioner, preferred to withdraw the plea.</p>.<p>The petitioner, who is set to superannuate by the end of this year, asked the court to call for all records including inquiry report of March 20, 2018, by the district judge, Devas and show cause notice issued on November 29, 2019, by the principal registrar of the High Court. He contended that the action initiated against him was mala fide, illegal and arbitrary and without the sanction.</p>.<p>He claimed that the Gender Sensitisation Internal Complaint Committee, in his case, completely negated the provisions of Section 10 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, by rejecting an application for conciliation submitted by the complainant. The complaint against the petitioner was made a woman judicial officer on March 7, 2018.</p>
