NEW DELHI: Punjab & Haryana high court, on the judicial side, ruled for the protection of life and liberty of two judicial officers in an "extra-marital relationship", but on the administrative side, dismissed them for the affair, an allegation levelled by the male officer's wife that was found baseless on judicial scrutiny.
Both the male and female judicial officers challenged termination of their services before the HC, which on Oct 25, 2018, dismissed the male officer's petition. A day later, the same bench ordered reinstatement of the woman officer, saying the allegation of alleged illicit relationship with the male judicial officer had no "iota of evidence".
The HC moved the Supreme Court against the reinstatement of the woman judicial officer. The SC dismissed the appeal. The woman officer was reinstated. The male officer moved the SC saying if there was no truth in the allegation of illicit relationship between him and the woman judicial officer, he should also be reinstated in service and the termination order of 2009 should be quashed.
On April 20, 2022, the SC set aside the HC's Oct 25, 2018, order dismissing the male officer's writ petition, the termination of service order of the Punjab govt of Dec 17, 2009, and requested the full court of Punjab and Haryana HC to reconsider the matter relating to his termination. More than a year later, the HC reiterated its 2009 decision on Aug 3, 2023, and the Punjab govt issued a letter on April 2, 2024, terminating the male officer's services afresh.
An SC bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale said, "Once the termination order was set aside and judgment of the HC dismissing the writ petition challenging the said termination order has also been set aside (by the SC), the natural consequence is that the employee should be taken back in service and thereafter proceeded with as per the directions."
Justice Nath said, "We find no justification in the inaction of the HC and also the state in not taking back the appellant (the male judicial officer) into service after the (SC's) April 20, 2022, order. In any case, the appellant was entitled to salary from April 20, 2022, the date of judgment, till fresh termination order was passed on April 2, 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."
For the period between Dec 18, 2009, when his services were terminated, till April 19, 2022, a day before his appeal was allowed by the SC, the bench directed the state to pay 50% of back wages while treating him to be in service continuously.
Both the male and female judicial officers challenged termination of their services before the HC, which on Oct 25, 2018, dismissed the male officer's petition. A day later, the same bench ordered reinstatement of the woman officer, saying the allegation of alleged illicit relationship with the male judicial officer had no "iota of evidence".
The HC moved the Supreme Court against the reinstatement of the woman judicial officer. The SC dismissed the appeal. The woman officer was reinstated. The male officer moved the SC saying if there was no truth in the allegation of illicit relationship between him and the woman judicial officer, he should also be reinstated in service and the termination order of 2009 should be quashed.
On April 20, 2022, the SC set aside the HC's Oct 25, 2018, order dismissing the male officer's writ petition, the termination of service order of the Punjab govt of Dec 17, 2009, and requested the full court of Punjab and Haryana HC to reconsider the matter relating to his termination. More than a year later, the HC reiterated its 2009 decision on Aug 3, 2023, and the Punjab govt issued a letter on April 2, 2024, terminating the male officer's services afresh.
An SC bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale said, "Once the termination order was set aside and judgment of the HC dismissing the writ petition challenging the said termination order has also been set aside (by the SC), the natural consequence is that the employee should be taken back in service and thereafter proceeded with as per the directions."
Justice Nath said, "We find no justification in the inaction of the HC and also the state in not taking back the appellant (the male judicial officer) into service after the (SC's) April 20, 2022, order. In any case, the appellant was entitled to salary from April 20, 2022, the date of judgment, till fresh termination order was passed on April 2, 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."
For the period between Dec 18, 2009, when his services were terminated, till April 19, 2022, a day before his appeal was allowed by the SC, the bench directed the state to pay 50% of back wages while treating him to be in service continuously.
You may also like
Kolkata rape case: CM Mamata Banerjee invites junior doctors for meeting today, calls it a final reach out
Loose Women star Andrea McLean gave boyfriend ultimatum after devastating diagnosis
A Very Royal Scandal release date, cast, episode count and how to watch
Deepika Padukone shares glimpse into life as new mom
