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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by arising out of Special Leave Petition Neetu Khajuria 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 statement of the
appellant’s wife and the alleged lady judicial
officer, forwarded his report in which it was stated
that wife of the appellant had clearly alleged that
her husband was having an illicit relationship with
a lady judicial officer who was then posted at
Phagwada because of which the appellant used to
harass his wife. The Committee of Judges
overseeing the work and conduct of the
probationers on 04.12.2009 recommended that
the appellant and also the lady judicial officer were
not fit to be retained in the service.
2.5. The Full Court of the High Court in its meeting
dated 07.12.2009 accepted the report of the
Committee of Judges dated 04.12.2009 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.
The work was withdrawn from the appellant on
07.12.2009. The resolution of the Full Court dated
07.12.2009 was accepted by the State of Punjab
and an order was passed on 17.12.2009
dispensing with the services of the appellant. On
the same day, another order was passed by the
State of Punjab dispensing the services of the lady
judicial officer.
2.6. Aggrieved by the said termination, the
appellant filed CWP No.9003 of 2010 before the
High Court. Similarly, the lady judicial officer filed
a separate petition registered as CWP No.8250 of
2010 challenging her termination. The Division
Bench of the High Court, vide judgment and order
dated 25.10.2018, dismissed the writ petition of
the appellant. On the very next day i.e.,
26.10.2018, the same Division Bench of the High
Court allowed the writ petition of the lady judicial
officer, set aside the termination order, after
disbelieving the allegations of an illicit
relationship.
2.7. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana
preferred SLP (Civil) No.4894 of 2019 assailing the
correctness of the judgment dated 26.10.2018
passed in the case of the lady judicial officer which
came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2019.
Thereafter, the lady judicial officer was reinstated
and is working.
2.8. The appellant preferred SLP (Civil) 33435 of
2018 assailing the correctness of the judgment
dated 25.10.2018 passed by the High Court
dismissing the writ petition. The SLP filed by the
appellant was taken up on 03.03.2022 and after
hearing the parties to some extent, the matter was
adjourned. However, the Court required the
counsel for the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
to obtain further instructions in the matter after
orally observing that it was prima facie of the view
that the appellant also deserves to be reinstated in
service.
2.9. The counsel for the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana communicated the observations made by
this Court to the Registrar General, vide
communication dated 04.03.2022. However, the
Registrar General of the High Court replied vide
communication dated 11.03.2022 with the
instructions that the matter may be argued on
merits.
2.10. On 20.04.2022, when the matter came up
before the Court, after hearing the learned senior
counsel for the parties, this Court granted leave
and allowed the appeal after setting aside the
impugned judgment of the High Court dated
25.10.2018 and the Termination Order dated
17.12.2009. It further requested the Full Court of
the High Court to reconsider the matter. The order
dated 20.04.2022 is reproduced below:
“Leave granted.
We have heard Mr. P.S.Patwalia,
learned senior counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior
counsel for the respondent-High Court
of Punjab and Haryana and perused the
relevant material placed on record.
We are of the considered view that
the Full Court of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
needs to reconsider this matter.
Therefore, the impugned order
dated 25th October, 2018 and the order
passed by the Principal Secretary to
Government, Punjab, Department of
Home Affairs and Justice on 17th
December, 2009 terminating the
services of the appellant herein are set
aside.
We, however, request the Full
Court of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana to reconsider the matter
without being influenced by any of the
observations made by the Division
Bench of the High Court in the
impugned order.
The appeal accordingly stands
disposed of in terms aforesaid.”
2.11. No consequential orders were passed by the
State after the order dated 20.04.2022 whereby
the termination order of the appellant dated
17.12.2009 passed by the State Government was
set aside. The High Court however, took up the
matter on the administrative side. The Full Court
in its meeting dated 16.09.2022 referred the
matter to the Recruitment and Promotion
Committee (RPC). Seven months thereafter, the
RPC reiterated its earlier decision dated
04.12.2009, relying upon the note of the
Administrative Judge dated 01.12.2009 and also
the report of the District and Sessions Judge dated
20.05.2009. The recommendation of the RPC
dated 12.04.2023 is reproduced hereunder:
“...Reconsideration of Hon'ble Full Court
decision dated 07.12.2009 regarding
dispensing with the services of Sh.
Anantdeep Singh, former member of
P.C.S. (J.B.), in view of judgment dated
20.04.2022 passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No.33435 of 2018 titled as "Anantdeep
Singh Vs. The High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr."
Sh. Anantdeep Singh, had joined P.C.S.
(J.B.) on 12.12.2006. On the
recommendation of this Court, his
services were dispensed with, during
probation, vide Punjab Government
order dated 17.12.2009. The officer
relinquished charge on 24.12.2009. The
CWP No.9003 of 2010 filed by him,
against the order dated 17.12.2009 of
Punjab Government, was dismissed by
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.
vide judgment dated 25.10.2018.
Thereafter, Sh. Anantdeep Singh had
filed SLP (Civil) No.33435 of 2018 titled
as "Sh. Anantdeep Singh vs. the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh and Another" against the
judgment dated 25.10.2018 of this
Court. While disposing of the appeal,
Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide judgment
dated 20.4.2022, had set aside the
impugned order dated 25th October
2018 and the order passed by the
Principal Secretary to Government,
Punjab, Department of Home Affairs
and Justice on l7th December, 2009
terminating the services of the appellant
and requested the Full Court of this
Court to reconsider the matter.
The matter was reconsidered by Hon'ble
Full Court in its meeting held on
16.09.2022 and it was resolved that the
matter be referred to Hon'ble
Recruitment and Promotion Committee
(Subordinate Judicial Services) for
examining the same and report. After
thoroughly re-examining the matter in
entirety particularly the observations of
the then Administrative Judge
contained in note dated 01.12.2009 as
also the report of District and Sessions
Judge dated 20.05.2009 and the fact
that the officer was merely a probationer
and the decision was taken within the
prescribed period, at this stage the
Committee is not in a position to come
to any different conclusion on the basis
of material on record. Thus, the
Committee reiterates its earlier decision
dated 04.12.2009.”
2.12. As the matter was further delayed and no
decision was being taken and that the appellant
had not been taken back in service despite the
termination order having been set aside, the
appellant filed M.A. No.655 of 2023, which was
disposed of by order dated 04.05.2023, requesting
the Full Court of the High Court to decide the
matter within three months. It was thereafter that
the Full Court of the High Court in its meeting
dated 03.08.2023 resolved to reiterate its earlier
decision dated 07.12.2009, terminating the
services of the appellant.
2.13. The appellant filed a petition before this
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
registered as W.P.(Civil) No.976 of 2023 which was
allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to explore
other legal options which may be available to move
before the High Court vide order dated
22.09.2023. The said order is reproduced
hereunder:
“Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior
counsel does not wish to press this writ
petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution and would explore other
legal options which may be available to
move the High Court.
Taking note of the above
submission of the learned senior
counsel, the writ petition stands
dismissed as not pressed, reserving the
liberty as aforesaid.”
2.14. The appellant in the meantime approached
the High Court under Right to Information Act,
2005 requesting for a copy of the letter dated
04.03.2022 written by the counsel for the High
Court to the Registrar General. This letter was
made available on 11.10.2023. It was thereafter
that the present M.A. was filed on 31.10.2023.
2.15. During the pendency of the said M.A. and
when the State of Punjab was also called upon to
be served with the copy of M.A., vide order dated
29.01.2024 and with the matter being listed on
several occasions, the State of Punjab passed an
order dated 02.04.2024 terminating the services of
the appellant with retrospective effect i.e.
17.12.2009. The said order dated 02.04.2024 has
been filed along with I.A. No.110912 of 2024.
3.It is on the above set of facts that we have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Shri Gaurav Dhama, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab.
4.The submissions advanced by Shri P.S. Patwalia are to the effect that the judgment and order of this Court dated 20.04.2022 has not been complied with by the respondents. The respondents ought to have taken back the appellant in service and thereafter proceeded to take the decision as directed by this Court. Further it was submitted that it took almost two years for the respondents to take a fresh decision. During this period, the appellant has neither been reinstated in service nor been paid any salary, no arrears have been paid from 17.12.2009, the date of the earlier termination order even though the same had been set aside by this Court.
5.It was also submitted by Mr. P.S. Patwalia that this Court in all its humility had not quashed the decision of the Full Court but having given serious thought to it, had clearly observed that this Court was of the considered view that the Full Court of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana needs to reconsider this matter which in itself is a clear indication that this Court had expressed its view on the resolution of the Full Court regarding termination of the appellant’s service to be not sustainable. It was thereafter that this Court had set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 25.10.2018 and the Termination order dated 17.12.2009.
6.It is also submitted on behalf of the appellant that the RPC and also the Full Court of the High Court have simply reiterated their earlier resolutions and as such there has been no reconsideration of the matter, the resolutions placed on record are also non-speaking.
7.It is also the submission of Mr. Patwalia that the complaint against the appellant was given by his wife and his mother-in-law. The entire contents of the reports submitted by the District and Sessions Judge and also the Administration Judge and the Review Committee are based on the complaint made by the wife and his mother-in-law. No independent enquiry was conducted, nor any show cause notice was issued to the appellant calling upon him to give a response to the complaint made by his wife and mother-in-law.
8.It was also submitted that the main allegations made by the wife and mother-in-law relates to the appellant carrying on an illicit relationship with the lady judicial officer. The other complaints alleged were of residing outside the official accommodation and of using a private car, which did not belong to him. It was also alleged in the complaint that the appellant had threatened and assaulted his wife. All the other allegations apart from the main allegations of illicit relationship with the lady judicial officer, were linked to the aforesaid main allegation.
9.The High Court, on the judicial side in the case of the lady judicial officer, found that there was not even any remote evidence regarding their illicit relationship and that the statement of the wife could not be taken as a gospel truth to throw the said lady judicial officer out of service, and it was found to be totally unjust. The findings recorded by the High Court in the judgment dated 26.10.2018 with respect to the illicit relationship is reproduced hereunder: “At the outset, we are at a loss to find even remote evidence about any illicit relationship from the above except use of the word “illicit relations”. That apart, her mere statement/perception like a gospel truth could not be acted upon to throw the appellant out of service. That was totally unjust”
10.It was submitted that once the complaint of the wife and mother-in-law of the appellant were not found to be credible and truthful with respect to the allegations of an illicit relationship, any reliance placed upon the said complaints with respect to minor allegations of using a private car not belonging to the appellant and of threatening and assaulting cannot be relied upon without there being any further corroboration. No reliance can be placed on the said complaints at all.
11.Mr. Patwalia thus submitted that this Court may not only allow the M.A. as prayed but may also consider setting aside the Termination order now passed on 02.04.2024 with retrospective effect from 17.12.2009 and reinstate the appellant back in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits.
12.It is also submitted that there could not have been any backdating of the Termination order being made effective from a previous date. The Termination order can be effective only from the date it is served on the employee. As such the order dated 02.04.2024 deserves to be quashed.
13.Mr. Patwalia has relied upon the judgment of this Court in State Bank of Patiala and another vs. Ramniwas Bansal (dead) through Lrs.1; for the proposition that the dismissal order cannot be made with retrospective effect, and it would only have prospective effect.
14.Before we deal with the submissions of Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the High Court, we may mention the response of the State as put forth by Additional Advocate General. According to Mr. Gaurav Dhama the State did not pass any consequential order after the order dated 20.04.2022. He further submitted that the order dated 02.04.2024 has been passed as per the resolution of the Full Court of the High Court. He, however, did not address the issue as to whether the termination order could have been passed making it effective from an earlier date.
15.Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the High Court justified not only the subsequent compliance affected by the High Court and also the resolution of the Full Court of the High Court to terminate the service of the appellant w.e.f. the earlier date and also the termination order issued by the State Government on 02.04.2024. On a specific query as to how the High Court could have proceeded against an officer who was not taken into service by passing a resolution of terminating the services from the previous date, he has sought to mix the issue by submitting that as the appellant was a probationer and his services were terminated as a probationer, if he was taken back in service during the period, the High Court was to take a fresh decision as required by this Court, then he would be treated as a regular employee because the period of probation under the Rules is only for a limited period of maximum three years and not beyond.
16.Mr. Gupta also had no answer as to why the High Court took one and half years to take the decision. He however expressed his inability to explain the delay on the part of the State for issue of termination order after eight months of the resolution of the Full Court of the High Court. Mr. Gupta further addressed the Court raising the point that any preliminary enquiry conducted to ascertain the suitability of a probationer and if termination follows without giving an opportunity, it will not be bad and will be a case of motive. In effect, the submission is that the probationer’s service could be dispensed with without holding a formal enquiry or giving an opportunity to the probationer and the employer was well within his right to dispense the service of the probationer by conducting the preliminary enquiry to ascertain the suitability. In this connection, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments: i.State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh2 ; ii.State of Punjab and others vs. Sukhwinder Singh3 ; iii.State of Punjab and others vs. Rajesh Kumar4 ; iv. Bishan Lal Gupta vs. State of Haryana5 ; v.State of Punjab vs. Sukh Raj Bahadur6 ; and vi.High Court of Patna vs. Pandey Madan Mohan7 .
17.Mr. Gupta, while further addressing on merits, submitted that it was not just the allegation of having illicit relationship with lady judicial officer but there were other very serious allegations which were unbecoming of a judicial officer and since the appellant was a probationer, the Full Court of the High Court found him unsuitable for continuing in service and accordingly he was dismissed from the service.
18.He further submitted that in the case of the lady judicial officer whose petition was allowed by 6 (1968) 3 SCR 234 the High Court and has since been reinstated to the service, the only allegation against the said lady judicial officer was of carrying on an illicit relationship with the appellant which the High Court found was without any basis or supporting material. According to him, in the present case, the High Court in the judgment dated 25.10.2018 had clearly held that it was omitting the allegations of illicit relation with the lady judicial officer from consideration and further relied upon other allegations of misconduct or unsuitability against the appellant and therefore, the appellant cannot claim any advantage or benefit from the judgment in the case of the lady judicial officer.
19.Having considered the submissions advanced, at the outset, we make it clear that we are not entering into the merits of the matter i.e., the reconsideration by the High Court in the Full Court meeting held on 03.08.2023 and the termination letter issued by the State on 02.04.2024. These orders could be tested before the High Court by way of a fresh writ petition to be filed by the appellant and such liberty having been granted by this Court in the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellant which was withdrawn on 22.09.2023. For the above reason, the case laws relied upon by Mr. Gupta are not being dealt with nor are we dealing with the case laws relied upon by Mr. Patwalia.
20.We are only dealing with the M.A. No.267 of 2024 where the appellant has prayed that he should be reinstated into service as Civil Judge with all consequential benefits in view of the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by this Court allowing the appeal.
21.Once the termination order is set aside and judgment 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. 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 into service after the order dated 20.04.2022. 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 judgment of this Court. In any case, the appellant was entitled to salary from the date of judgment dated 20.04.2022 till fresh termination order was passed on 02.04.2024. The appellant would thus be entitled to full salary for the above period to be calculated with all benefits admissible treating the appellant to be in continuous service.
22.Insofar as the period from 18.12.2009 i.e., after the termination order of 17.12.2009 was passed till 19.04.2022 the date prior to the judgment 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 percent of the back wages treating him to be in service continuously. Such back wages to be calculated with all benefits admissible under law to the appellant as if he was in service.
23.Insofar as the challenge to the resolution of the Full Court of the High Court dated 03.08.2023 and termination order dated 02.04.2024 is concerned, the appellant would be at liberty to challenge the same by way of a writ petition before the High Court which may be decided on its own merits totally uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. The facts and observations made are only with respect to the disposal of the M.A. No.267 of 2024.
24.M.A. stands disposed of accordingly. (VIKRAM NATH) (PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 06, 2024