01Facts
The petitioner challenged a memorandum dated 22 September 2026 initiating departmental inquiry proceedings, which she said relied on earlier proceedings arising from her sexual-harassment complaint and a report attributed to the Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Department, Bhind.
¶ 2She argued that the memorandum relied on a memo already quashed by a Division Bench on 1 October 2026 in Misc. Petition No. 1491/2026, X v. Union of India and Others.
¶ 2The Union of India objected that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction.
¶ 302Issues
i.Whether the High Court should entertain the challenge to the departmental memorandum when an alternative remedy before the CAT was available.
¶ 3, 7ii.Whether, in light of the Division Bench’s order dated 1 October 2026, the petitioner should first submit a representation to the competent authority.
¶ 2, 6–703Law Applied
The Court considered its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy before the CAT.
¶ 7The Court also directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation in light of the Division Bench’s order dated 1 October 2026.
¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Section 14
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the challenged memorandum relied on proceedings connected to the petitioner’s complaint and that the Division Bench had already quashed the underlying memo.
¶ 2, 6However, it held that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy before the CAT and stated that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
¶ 7Rather than adjudicate the memorandum’s validity, the Court directed the petitioner to place the Division Bench’s order before the competent authority for consideration.
¶ 705Holding
The petition was disposed of without a decision on the merits.
¶ 7The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh, detailed representation, reply, or explanation, with the 1 October 2026 Division Bench order, to respondent No. 3 within 10 working days.
¶ 7The competent authority was directed to decide it having regard to that order.
¶ 7If any grievance remained, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the competent authority’s conclusion or final order before the CAT; the Court stated that its direction would not operate as a precedent in other cases.
¶ 7Original Court PDF
Ms. Pratishtha KulshreshthavsUnion Of India
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
