Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a civil writ petition filed by a Judge seeking to quash his dismissal from Haryana Civil Services (‘HCS’) (Judicial Branch) and withdrawal of judicial work from him, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ., and Anil Kshetarpal*, J., allowed the petition holding that the petitioner was deprived of the fair opportunity to defend himself and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages, and seniority.
Background
The petitioner was a Judge appointed by HCS (Judicial Branch) who was married to a Civil Judge (Junior Division). Due to a strained relationship between the couple, the petitioner’s former wife made a complaint to an Administrative Judge. The Administrative Judge attempted to reconcile the dispute between the couple, but it was futile. Subsequently, a report was submitted by the Administrative Judge wherein the petitioner was indicted on various counts. It was concluded that his conduct was unbecoming of a judicial officer as he was a person of a depraved nature and had taken undue advantage of a lady. Additionally, adverse comments were made about the petitioner’s work.
The report submitted by the Administrative Judge was considered by the Review of Work and Conduct of Probationary Judicial Officer Committee (‘the Committee’). The Committee recommended termination of the petitioner’s services. Pending adjudication by the Full Court, the petitioner submitted his resignation to the Registrar General, which he later withdrew, with a caveat that he was not granted a proper opportunity to be heard and not supplied with documents that were relied upon by the High Court. Subsequently, his judicial work was withdrawn from him by the Administrative Judge vide the impugned order.
The Full Court concluded that since the petitioner’s work and conduct as a Judicial Officer were not satisfactory, his services should be dispensed. Accordingly, the Haryana Government issued the impugned order dispensing with the petitioner’s service. Aggrieved, the present writ petition was filed.
Analysis
The Court stated that evidently, the foundation of the impugned order dispensing with the petitioner’s service was the complaint filed by his former wife and the report submitted by the Administrative Judge. The Committee had also relied upon the report of the Administrative Judge. The Court noted that the petitioner was never issued any charge sheet.
The Court further noted that in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, the petitioner was rated as a ‘Good Officer’. Similarly, the District Judge also rated the petitioner as a ‘Good Officer’. The Court stated that the Administrative Judge’s report regarding the work and conduct of the petitioner was submitted without granting him an opportunity to be heard.
The Court held that the report of the Administrative Judge was based on the complaint filed by the petitioner’s former wife. Thus, it was evident that the petitioner was deprived of the fair opportunity to defend himself.
Holding the aforesaid, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, back wages, and seniority. However, the respondent would have the liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
[Peeyush Gakhar v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Civil Writ Petition No. 5173 of 2010 (O&M), decided on 17-01-2025]
*Judgment authored by Justice Anil Kshetarpal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Rajiv Atma Ram, Brijesh Khosla, Shreya Kaushik,
For the respondents: Ashok K. Bhardwaj and Additional Advocate General Naveen S. Bhardwaj
