SC expresses dismay over Punjab and Haryana HC not reinstating judicial officer sacked over 'affair'

New Delhi, Sep 12 (PTI) The Supreme Court has expressed displeasure over the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision of not reinstating a judicial officer, sacked for an alleged affair with a lady judicial officer, despite the top court setting aside his termination letter in 2022.

The issue has been moving between the high court and the apex court since 2009.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice P B Varale, in its recent order, noted that the apex court on April 20, 2022, set aside the high court's October 25, 2018, order dismissing the male judicial officer's plea against his termination from service.

It had directed the full court of the high court to reconsider its decision of sacking the judicial officer.

The Supreme Court had also noted that on October 26, 2018, the same division bench of the high court allowed the petition of the lady judicial officer and set aside the termination order, after disbelieving the allegations of an illicit relationship.

"Once the termination order is set aside (by SC in 2022) and the judgement of the high court dismissing the writ petition challenging the said termination order has also been set aside, the natural consequence is that the employee should be taken back in service and thereafter proceeded with as per the directions," the top court bench said recently.

The apex court bench said that once the termination order is set aside then the employee is deemed to be in service.

"We find no justification in the inaction of the high court and also the state in not taking back the appellant (judicial officer) into service after the order dated April 20, 2022.

"No decision was taken either by the high court or by the state of taking back the appellant into service and no decision was made regarding the back wages from the date the termination order had been passed till the date of reinstatement which should be the date of the judgement of this court," the bench said.

It added the judicial officer would thus be entitled to full salary for the period from the date of judgment dated April 20, 2022, till a fresh termination order was passed on April 2, 2024, to be calculated with all benefits admissible treating the appellant to be in continuous service.

The bench directed that insofar as the period from December 18, 2009, that is after the termination order of December 17, 2009, was passed till April 19, 2022, the date prior to the judgement and order of this court, "we are of the view that ends of justice would be served by directing that the appellant would be entitled to 50 per cent of the back wages treating him to be in service continuously".

It added such back wages to be calculated with all benefits admissible under law to the appellant as if he was in service.

The bench granted liberty to the judicial officer to challenge before the high court, the resolution of the full court of the high court dated August 3, 2023, and the termination order dated April 2, 2024.

The judicial officer joined Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) in 2006. At the time of joining the service in December 2006, the appellant was already married. However, the marriage was not smooth and there would be disputes quite often.

The bench noted that in order to avoid the situation getting worse, the appellant left the official accommodation and shifted to a private accommodation.

His wife and mother-in-law continued to reside in the official accommodation. However, sometime in November/December 2008, the wife of the judicial officer made a complaint about his involvement with a woman judicial officer, besides allegations of assault and use of a private vehicle not belonging to him.

On April 22, 2009, the judicial officer filed a petition seeking a decree of divorce. The Committee of Judges, overseeing the work and conduct of probationers, on December 4, 2009, recommended that the appellant and also the lady judicial officer were not fit to be retained in service.

The full court of the high court in its meeting dated December 7, 2009, accepted the report of the Committee of Judges dated December 4, 2009 and resolved that the services of not only the appellant but also the lady judicial officer were to be terminated by an order of "termination simpliciter".

Work was withdrawn from the appellant on December 7, 2009. The resolution of the full court was accepted by the Punjab government and an order was passed on December 17, 2009, dispensing with the services of the appellant.

On the same day, another order was passed by the Punjab government dispensing the services of the lady judicial officer. Both the officers then challenged the full court decision and the state government's termination order in the high court.

The high court rejected the plea of the male judicial officer but allowed the plea of the lady officer and reinstated her. PTI MNL MNL NSD NSD