No Evidence On Record: Punjab & Haryana HC Reinstates Civil Judge Being Dismissed From Service Due To Adverse Remarks Against Him
The Punjab and Haryana High Court reinstated a Civil Judge who was dismissed from service on account of adverse remarks against him.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by the said Judge seeking quashing of adverse remarks and grading against him.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, “Since there is no such evidence on record, to the extent, that any prejudice became encumbered upon the complainant on the score of the delayed forwarding of the apposite statutory appeal. Resultantly therefrom thus, apart from the factum of the complainant evidently omitting to make a complaint against the present petitioner for his purportedly delaying the forwarding of the statutory appeal, hence leads this Court to form a conclusion, that the findings recorded on charge No. 2 against the present petitioner, are ill-informed findings recorded thereon.”
Senior Advocate D.S. Patwalia represented the petitioner while Sr. DAG Maninder Singh and Senior Advocate Gaurav Chopra represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate and was posted at Jalandhar in 1997. Thereafter, satisfactory/average grading was given to him without appraisal of his work done. He was promoted as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and became posted at Balachaur in 2008. During his entire service, his integrity was found good by the Administrative Judges and the adverse remarks were noted against him in the ACR of 2008-2009. Whereas, no adverse remarks became recorded by the Administrative Judge in the ACR of 2009-2010. The petitioner was never appraised of acts leading to doubt vis-à-vis his integrity during the entire inspection for the year 2008-2009.
Vide application in 2015, he applied for the copies of written or oral complaints regarding his work and conduct as judicial officer for the relevant period relating to his integrity, promotion of groupism in bar, and not acting as per law. In response to the said application, he was provided four complaints. He received the impugned ACR for the year 2008-2009 wherein adverse remarks qua his integrity were recorded. Subsequently, he filed a representation for expunging the adverse remarks in the impugned ACR. He also moved representations against average grading in the ACRs of 2007-2008 and 2009-2010, however, in the meeting of the Vigilance Committee, the representations were rejected. Consequently, an order was passed by the High Court, recommending the imposition of major penalty upon the petitioner which resulted in his dismissal from service.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, the Court observed, “… the only worthwhile statement which is required to be examined, thus is the statement of PW-5 Moti Lal, who however exonerated the guilt of the petitioner, besides even in his cross-examination, he has failed to make any adverse statement against the present petitioner. As such, after discarding the statement of the vacillating witness PW-7, the only testimony which remained on record, thus was the testimony of PW-5, who however, exonerated the guilt of the accused.”
The Court added that the relevant imputation of misconduct against the petitioner, even on the preponderance of probabilities, rather was neither required to be answered against the petitioner, nor could be construed to be proven against him.
“In sequel, the findings adversarial to the present petitioner, as recorded qua Charge No. 1 are infirmly recorded findings. … unless further evidence is spoken by the Reader of the Court, to the telling effect, that he had been orally directed by the petitioner to omit to make a report, thereby the marking of the statutory appeal by the present petitioner to the Reader, thus for a report, but may not have led to a conclusion that, as such, an ill intention became etched in the mind of the present petitioner to, thus upto a period of ten months delay the forwarding of the statutory appeal”, it further noted.
The Court said that, the charge framed against the petitioner relates to the allegations, that he had issued 17 notices under the Punjab Courts Act to the then Reader of his Court, and, subsequently vide different orders passed, had imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each notice totalling Rs. 85,000/-.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the dismissal order, and reinstated the petitioner.
Cause Title- Sangeet Pal Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:141760-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate D.S. Patwalia and Advocate Rishu Bajaj.
Respondents: Sr. DAG Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate Gaurav Chopra, Advocates Ranjit Singh Kalra, and Mona Yadav.
