SC CRITICISES PUNJAB & HARYANA HC FOR TERMINATING JUDICIAL OFFICER OVER 'AFFAIR'

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on the judicial side, ruled for the protection of two judicial officers involved in an extramarital relationship, despite administrative action dismissing them due to the allegation levelled by the male officer’s wife, which was later found baseless upon judicial scrutiny, according to a report by Times of India.

Both the male and female judicial officers contested the termination of their employment before the High Court which delivered its rulings in the case. On October 25, 2018, it rejected the male officer's petition. However, a day later, the court ordered the female officer's reinstatement, citing a lack of evidence to support the allegations of an improper relationship, the TOI report added.

On April 20, 2022, the top court set aside the HC’s Oct 25, 2018 order dismissing the officer's challenge to the termination order. It also requested the full court of Punjab and Haryana High Court to reconsider the matter related to his termination.

However, on August 3, 2023, the High Court reiterated its original 2009 ruling. This decision prompted the Punjab government to issue a new termination order on April 2, 2024.

“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,” an SC bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale said, as per LiveLaw.

“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,” it said.

The court ruled that the male officer was entitled to his full salary from April 20, 2022, until the issuance of a fresh termination order on April 2, 2024. Additionally, the state was directed to pay 50% of back wages for the period from December 18, 2009 (when his services were terminated) to April 19, 2022 (a day before his appeal was allowed by the SC), treating the officer as continuously in service.

2024-09-12T11:57:15Z dg43tfdfdgfd