SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 767

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE, JJ.
Anantdeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
The High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh & Anr. - Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No. 267 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 3082 OF 2022
Decided on : 06-09-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Termination – Once termination order is set aside then employee is deemed to be in service.

Headnote:

Service Law – Termination – From post of Civil Judge – Once termination order is set aside and judgment of High Court dismissing writ petition challenging termination order has also been set aside, natural consequence is that employee should be taken back in service and thereafter proceeded with as per directions – Once termination order is set aside then employee is deemed to be in service – No decision was taken either by High Court or by State of taking back appellant into service and no decision was made regarding back wages from the date termination order had been passed till date of reinstatement which should be date of judgment of this Court – Ends of justice would be served by directing that appellant would be entitled to 50% of back wages treating him to be in service continuously – Such back wages to be calculated with all benefits admissible under law to appellant as if he was in service. (Paras 21 and 22)

Facts of the case:

Miscellaneous Application No.267 of 2024 has been filed by appellant seeking direction to respondents to reinstate appellant into service as Civil Judge with all consequential benefits.

Findings of Court:

Insofar as the challenge to resolution of Full Court of High Court dated 03.08.2023 and termination order dated 02.04.2024 is concerned, appellant would be at liberty to challenge the same by way of a writ petition before High Court which may be decided on its own merits totally uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.

Result : Miscellaneous Application disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Miscellaneous Application No.267 of 2024 has been filed by the appellant Anantdeep Singh praying for the following reliefs:

    “i) direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant/applicant into service as Civil Judge with all consequential benefits in view of the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Appeal No.3082 of 2022 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.33435 of 2018;

    ii) Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Before we deal with the aforesaid application, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts giving rise to the present application:

2.1. The appellant was a judicial officer with the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) since 2006. Under the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, period of probation under Rule 7 thereof is for three years which was to continue till December 2009. At the time of joining the service in December 2006, the appellant was already married, however, the marriage was not going very smoothly and quite often there would be disputes between the appellant and his wife. 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. Sometime in November/December 2008, the wife of the appellant made a complaint as a result of which the appellant was called by not only the District Judge but also the Administrative Judge concerned in December 2008 and February 2009. The appellant explained his position and clarified why he was residing in a private accommodation. No written explanation was called from the appellant regarding the complaint made by his wife at that stage.

2.2. It was only vide communication dated 06.04.2009, that the appellant was called upon to answer as to whether he was residing in the official accommodation. Immediately, the appellant responded vide letter dated 07.04.2009 and a further letter dated 20.04.2009 stating that he had moved out of his official accommodation apprehending danger to his life and to avoid any undue incident and was residing with his maternal uncle. On 22.04.2009, the appellant filed a petition seeking a decree of divorce. At the same time, the appellant -mother-in-law, who was also a government servant working as Principal of a Government College at Faridkot, met the District and Sessions Judge and complained about the appellant with regard to the dispute with his wife. The District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot forwarded his report on 20.05.2009 to the Registrar General of the High Court mentioning the matrimonial dispute of the appellant.

2.3. In November 2009, reports were called regarding the review of work of all judicial officers on probation by the Committee of Judges In Charge of review of work and conduct of the probationers. The report is said to have been sent by the District and Sessions Judge on 27.11.2009 stating that the work and conduct of the appellant was satisfactory. Thereafter, it appears that the Registrar General of the High Court again wrote to the District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot to send a detailed report regarding the appellant in particular, concerning the allegations against the appellant of having an illicit relationship with a lady judicial officer. The Administrative Judge on the same day i.e. 01.12.2009, gave his remarks based on the report of the District and Sessions Judge dated 20.05.2009. The Committee of the Judges overseeing the work and conduct of the probationers, gave its opinion that the appellant was not fit to continue in service and further, decided that the lady judicial officer, with whom the appellant was said to be having a relationship, be identified and she may also be confronted with the said allegations.

2.4. On 02.12.2009, the District and Sessions Judge after recording the statem

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top