In a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India, a judgment on the termination order regarding reinstatement and back wages has been passed. The case involves a review of the termination order and considerations for the petitioner’s rights. This ruling has far-reaching implications on employment law and legal proceedings. Stay tuned for more details on this crucial legal case.
Facts
- In November 2009, reports were called regarding the review of work of all judicial officers on probation by the Committee of Judges.
- The appellant, Anantdeep Singh, was a judicial officer with the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) since 2006.
- The appellant’s marriage was turbulent, leading to disputes with his wife, prompting him to shift to a private accommodation.
- Allegations were made against the appellant regarding an illicit relationship with a lady judicial officer.
- No independent inquiry was conducted and no show cause notice was issued to the appellant based on complaints by his wife and mother-in-law.
- The appellant filed a petition seeking reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits based on a previous court order.
- The State of Punjab terminated the services of the lady judicial officer and later terminated the appellant’s services with retrospective effect.
- The appellant responded to complaints by explaining his living situation and reasons for shifting to private accommodation.
- Various legal proceedings were initiated by the appellant challenging the termination of services and seeking reinstatement.
- There were delays and lack of actions by the respondents in addressing the appellant’s case.
- The High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on 25.10.2018 and issued a termination order on 17.12.2009.
- The Committee overseeing probationers’ work and conduct deemed the appellant unfit for service and recommended identifying the lady judicial officer allegedly involved.
- The High Court in its judgment dated 26.10.2018 found no concrete evidence of an illicit relationship between the appellant and the lady judicial officer.
- The High Court emphasized that the wife’s statement alone cannot be relied upon as gospel truth to terminate the appellant’s service.
Also Read: Case of Fair Investigation: Involving Senior Judicial Officer
Arguments
- Mr. Patwalia argued for the petitioner, stating that the complaints by the wife and mother-in-law were not credible, thus minor allegations should not be relied upon without further corroboration.
- He requested the court to set aside the termination order with retrospective effect from 17.12.2009 and reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and benefits.
- Mr. Patwalia cited the judgement that dismissal orders cannot have retrospective effect, according to which the termination order should only have prospective effect.
- It was highlighted that the termination order was passed in accordance with the Full Court’s resolution, but no clarification was provided on backdating the order.
- Mr. Gupta defended the High Court’s decision to terminate the petitioner’s services and justified the retrospective effect of the termination.
- The argument was raised that termination of a probationer without opportunity or formal enquiry is not invalid and can be effective only from the date it is served on the employee.
- It was suggested that if the petitioner was reinstated during the probation period, a fresh decision by the High Court would be required to determine his employee status.
Also Read: Case Summary: Pay Disparity Dispute Resolved by Supreme Court of India
Analysis
- The High Court in the judgment dated 25.10.2018 had omitted considering the allegations of illicit relation with the lady judicial officer against the appellant and focused on other misconduct allegations.
- The appellant cannot claim any benefit from the omission of the illicit relationship allegation as there were other serious allegations of misconduct against him.
- The Full Court of the High Court found the appellant unsuitable for service due to various unbecoming allegations despite the omission of the illicit relationship allegation.
- In comparison, the lady judicial officer’s reinstatement was due to the High Court finding the illicit relationship allegation against her baseless.
- The appellant has the liberty to file a fresh writ petition before the High Court, as granted by the Supreme Court in a previous petition.
- The case laws referenced by the counsels are not being addressed in this specific matter.
- The termination order of the appellant was set aside by the Supreme Court, yet he has not been reinstated or received any salary since 2009.
- The Supreme Court observed that the Full Court’s decision on the termination needs reconsideration, indicating their view on its sustainability.
- The resolutions by the RPC and the Full Court are non-speaking and lack reconsideration of the appellant’s termination.
- The reports from the District and Sessions Judge, Administration Judge, and Review Committee relied on complaints from the appellant’s wife and mother-in-law.
- The Lady Judicial Officer (Original Name) had made a complaint against the District Judge (Original Name), alleging harassment and misconduct.
- The Lady Judicial Officer’s complaint involved several incidents that she claimed had caused mental and emotional distress. These incidents included inappropriate comments and behavior by the District Judge.
Also Read: Land Dispute Resolution: Specific Performance Decree for Plaintiffs in Ranchi Property Case
Decision
- Appellant entitled to full salary from the date of judgment dated 20.04.2022 till the fresh termination order on 02.04.2024.
- No decision taken by the High Court or the State regarding taking back the appellant into service or back wages.
- Appellant to receive full salary for the period between the judgment on 20.04.2022 and the new termination order on 02.04.2024.
- No justification found for the inaction of the High Court and the State in not reinstating the appellant after the order dated 20.04.2022.
- Appellant deemed to be in continuous service once the termination order is set aside.
- Appellant entitled to 50 percent of back wages for the period from 18.12.2009 to 19.04.2022.
Case Title: ANANTDEEP SINGH Vs. THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (2024 INSC 673)
Case Number: MA-000267 – 2024
