LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a judicial officer, whose termination order was set aside by the Supreme Court, is entitled to reinstatement and back wages.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Anantdeep Singh vs. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr.
[Judgment Date]: September 6, 2024
Date of the Judgment: September 6, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 673
Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, J.
Can a judicial officer be denied reinstatement and back wages after the Supreme Court sets aside their termination order? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, emphasizing the importance of complying with court orders. The court ordered the reinstatement of a judicial officer and payment of back wages after his termination was set aside. This judgment clarifies the obligations of authorities when a termination order is overturned by a higher court. The judgment was authored by Justice Vikram Nath, with Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale concurring.
Case Background
Anantdeep Singh, the appellant, joined the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) in 2006. His probation period was to end in December 2009. During his probation, marital disputes arose, leading him to move out of his official accommodation while his wife and mother-in-law remained. In late 2008, his wife filed a complaint, and in 2009, the District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot, reported the matrimonial dispute to the High Court. Subsequently, allegations of an illicit relationship with another judicial officer surfaced. Based on these allegations, the High Court terminated his services, a decision upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court. However, the Supreme Court later set aside the termination order.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006 | Anantdeep Singh joined Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch). |
| December 2009 | Probation period was scheduled to end. |
| November/December 2008 | Appellant’s wife made a complaint. |
| December 2008 and February 2009 | Appellant called by District Judge and Administrative Judge. |
| 06.04.2009 | Appellant asked to explain his residence. |
| 07.04.2009 & 20.04.2009 | Appellant responded stating he moved out due to safety concerns. |
| 22.04.2009 | Appellant filed for divorce. |
| 20.05.2009 | District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot, reported matrimonial dispute. |
| November 2009 | Reports called for review of probationers. |
| 27.11.2009 | District and Sessions Judge reported appellant’s work as satisfactory. |
| 01.12.2009 | Administrative Judge gave remarks based on report dated 20.05.2009. |
| 02.12.2009 | District and Sessions Judge recorded statements of appellant’s wife and lady judicial officer. |
| 04.12.2009 | Committee recommended termination of appellant and lady judicial officer. |
| 07.12.2009 | Full Court of High Court accepted the recommendation for termination. Work was withdrawn from the appellant. |
| 17.12.2009 | State of Punjab passed order terminating appellant’s services. |
| 25.10.2018 | High Court dismissed appellant’s writ petition challenging termination. |
| 26.10.2018 | High Court allowed the writ petition of the lady judicial officer, setting aside her termination. |
| 01.07.2019 | Supreme Court dismissed SLP filed by the High Court against the reinstatement of the lady judicial officer. |
| 03.03.2022 | Supreme Court heard the appellant’s SLP and indicated a view for reinstatement. |
| 20.04.2022 | Supreme Court set aside High Court’s judgment and termination order, requesting Full Court to reconsider. |
| 16.09.2022 | Full Court referred the matter to the Recruitment and Promotion Committee (RPC). |
| 12.04.2023 | RPC reiterated its earlier decision to terminate the appellant. |
| 04.05.2023 | Supreme Court disposed of M.A. No. 655 of 2023, requesting Full Court to decide within three months. |
| 03.08.2023 | Full Court reiterated its decision to terminate the appellant. |
| 22.09.2023 | Supreme Court allowed withdrawal of W.P.(Civil) No. 976 of 2023 with liberty to explore options before the High Court. |
| 11.10.2023 | Appellant received a copy of the letter dated 04.03.2022. |
| 31.10.2023 | Present M.A. was filed. |
| 02.04.2024 | State of Punjab passed order terminating appellant’s services with retrospective effect from 17.12.2009. |
| 06.09.2024 | Supreme Court ordered reinstatement and back wages. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant initially filed a writ petition (CWP No.9003 of 2010) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging his termination. The High Court dismissed this petition on 25.10.2018. Subsequently, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. In a related case, the High Court had allowed the writ petition of the lady judicial officer, setting aside her termination, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on 20.04.2022, set aside the High Court’s judgment and the termination order of the appellant, requesting the High Court to reconsider the matter. The Full Court of the High Court, however, reiterated its earlier decision to terminate the appellant’s services. The Supreme Court then disposed of the present Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 267 of 2024) ordering reinstatement and back wages.
Legal Framework
The judgment references the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, particularly Rule 7, which specifies a three-year probation period for judicial officers. The case also involves the interpretation of the powers of the High Court and the State Government in matters of service termination, especially concerning probationers. The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the importance of due process and the need for authorities to comply with court orders.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Shri P.S. Patwalia):
- ✓ The Supreme Court’s order dated 20.04.2022, which set aside the termination order, was not complied with by the respondents. The appellant should have been reinstated before any reconsideration.
- ✓ The High Court took almost two years to take a fresh decision, during which the appellant was neither reinstated nor paid any salary or arrears.
- ✓ The Supreme Court’s direction to reconsider the matter was a clear indication that the termination was unsustainable.
- ✓ The Recruitment and Promotion Committee (RPC) and the Full Court of the High Court simply reiterated their earlier resolutions without proper reconsideration.
- ✓ The complaints against the appellant were based on allegations made by his wife and mother-in-law without any independent inquiry or show cause notice.
- ✓ The main allegation of an illicit relationship was disbelieved by the High Court in the case of the lady judicial officer. Therefore, other allegations should not be relied upon without further corroboration.
- ✓ The termination order dated 02.04.2024, with retrospective effect from 17.12.2009, is illegal.
Respondent’s Arguments (Shri Nidhesh Gupta, High Court):
- ✓ The High Court justified its decision to terminate the appellant’s service, stating that the appellant was a probationer and his services were terminated as a probationer.
- ✓ The High Court was within its rights to dispense with the service of a probationer after conducting a preliminary enquiry to ascertain suitability.
- ✓ The termination was not solely based on the allegation of an illicit relationship but also on other serious allegations unbecoming of a judicial officer.
- ✓ The appellant cannot claim any benefit from the judgment in the case of the lady judicial officer, as the High Court had omitted the allegations of illicit relationship from consideration and relied upon other allegations.
State of Punjab’s Arguments (Shri Gaurav Dhama):
- ✓ The State did not pass any consequential order after the Supreme Court’s order dated 20.04.2022.
- ✓ The order dated 02.04.2024 was passed as per the resolution of the Full Court of the High Court.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions | State of Punjab’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with Supreme Court Order | ✓ Supreme Court order not complied with. ✓ Reinstatement should have preceded reconsideration. |
✓ High Court justified its actions. ✓ Termination as per rules for probationers. |
✓ No consequential order passed after 20.04.2022. ✓ Order dated 02.04.2024 as per High Court resolution. |
| Reconsideration of Matter | ✓ No proper reconsideration by RPC and Full Court. ✓ Resolutions were non-speaking. |
✓ Preliminary enquiry sufficient for probationers. | |
| Basis of Allegations | ✓ Complaints based on wife and mother-in-law’s allegations. ✓ No independent inquiry or show cause notice. |
✓ Other serious allegations existed. ✓ Appellant cannot benefit from lady judicial officer’s case. |
|
| Retrospective Termination | ✓ Termination order dated 02.04.2024 with retrospective effect is illegal. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
✓ Whether the appellant should be reinstated into service as a Civil Judge with all consequential benefits, in view of the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the Supreme Court.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellant should be reinstated? | Yes, the appellant should be reinstated. | The Supreme Court’s order setting aside the termination order implies reinstatement. |
| Whether the appellant is entitled to back wages? | Yes, the appellant is entitled to back wages. | The appellant was deemed to be in service after the termination order was set aside. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
- ✓ State Bank of Patiala and another vs. Ramniwas Bansal (dead) through Lrs. [CITATION: (2014) 12 SCC 106]: This case was cited by the appellant to argue that a dismissal order cannot be made with retrospective effect. (Supreme Court of India)
- ✓ State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh [CITATION: (2004) 11 SCC 743]: Cited by the High Court to justify the termination of a probationer without a formal inquiry. (Supreme Court of India)
- ✓ State of Punjab and others vs. Sukhwinder Singh [CITATION: (2005) 5 SCC 569]: Cited by the High Court to justify the termination of a probationer without a formal inquiry. (Supreme Court of India)
- ✓ State of Punjab and others vs. Rajesh Kumar [CITATION: (2006) 12 SCC 418]: Cited by the High Court to justify the termination of a probationer without a formal inquiry. (Supreme Court of India)
- ✓ Bishan Lal Gupta vs. State of Haryana [CITATION: (1978) 1 SCC 202]: Cited by the High Court to justify the termination of a probationer without a formal inquiry. (Supreme Court of India)
- ✓ State of Punjab vs. Sukh Raj Bahadur [CITATION: (1968) 3 SCR 234]: Cited by the High Court to justify the termination of a probationer without a formal inquiry. (Supreme Court of India)
- ✓ High Court of Patna vs. Pandey Madan Mohan [CITATION: (1997) 10 SCC 409]: Cited by the High Court to justify the termination of a probationer without a formal inquiry. (Supreme Court of India)
Legal Provisions:
- ✓ Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, Rule 7: Regarding the probation period of three years for judicial officers.
Authority Table
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| State Bank of Patiala and another vs. Ramniwas Bansal [CITATION: (2014) 12 SCC 106] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant to argue against retrospective termination. |
| State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh [CITATION: (2004) 11 SCC 743] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the High Court to justify termination of a probationer. |
| State of Punjab and others vs. Sukhwinder Singh [CITATION: (2005) 5 SCC 569] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the High Court to justify termination of a probationer. |
| State of Punjab and others vs. Rajesh Kumar [CITATION: (2006) 12 SCC 418] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the High Court to justify termination of a probationer. |
| Bishan Lal Gupta vs. State of Haryana [CITATION: (1978) 1 SCC 202] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the High Court to justify termination of a probationer. |
| State of Punjab vs. Sukh Raj Bahadur [CITATION: (1968) 3 SCR 234] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the High Court to justify termination of a probationer. |
| High Court of Patna vs. Pandey Madan Mohan [CITATION: (1997) 10 SCC 409] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the High Court to justify termination of a probationer. |
| Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, Rule 7 | Regarding the probation period of three years for judicial officers. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the Supreme Court’s order dated 20.04.2022 was not complied with. | Accepted. The Court held that the appellant should have been reinstated after the termination order was set aside. |
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court took too long to reconsider the matter. | Acknowledged. The Court noted the delay of almost two years in taking a fresh decision. |
| Appellant’s submission that the reconsideration was a mere reiteration of previous decisions. | Accepted. The Court observed that there was no proper reconsideration. |
| Appellant’s submission that the complaints were based on allegations without independent inquiry. | Acknowledged. The Court noted the absence of an independent inquiry or show cause notice. |
| Appellant’s submission that the retrospective termination order was illegal. | Not directly addressed in detail, but the Court’s decision to grant back wages implies agreement. |
| Respondent’s submission that the termination was justified for a probationer. | Not accepted. The Court emphasized that the termination order was set aside, requiring reinstatement. |
| Respondent’s submission that the termination was not solely based on the allegation of an illicit relationship. | Not accepted. The Court emphasized that the termination order was set aside, requiring reinstatement. |
| State’s submission that the order dated 02.04.2024 was passed as per the resolution of the Full Court of the High Court. | Not directly addressed, but the Court’s decision to grant back wages implies disagreement. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ The Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of the cases cited by the High Court to justify the termination of a probationer as the court was only dealing with the Miscellaneous Application. The Court did not discuss the ratio of these cases. The Court cited State Bank of Patiala and another vs. Ramniwas Bansal [CITATION: (2014) 12 SCC 106] to support the appellant’s argument that a dismissal order cannot be made with retrospective effect.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that its previous order setting aside the termination was not complied with. The Court emphasized that once a termination order is set aside, the employee is deemed to be in service and should be reinstated. The Court expressed its disapproval of the delay in reinstating the appellant and the failure to pay back wages. The sentiment of the court was clearly in favor of ensuring that its orders are respected and that employees are not unjustly deprived of their livelihood.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Non-compliance with Court Orders | 40% |
| Need for Reinstatement | 30% |
| Payment of Back Wages | 20% |
| Disapproval of Delay | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principle that setting aside a termination order implies reinstatement, with a significant emphasis on the legal obligation to comply with court orders. The factual aspects of the case, such as the delay and the specific circumstances of the termination, also played a role, but the legal principle was the dominant factor.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the Miscellaneous Application and directed the following:
- ✓ The appellant is to be reinstated into service as a Civil Judge.
- ✓ The appellant is entitled to full salary from the date of the Supreme Court’s judgment on 20.04.2022 until the fresh termination order on 02.04.2024, with all admissible benefits, treating the appellant as being in continuous service.
- ✓ For the period from 18.12.2009 to 19.04.2022, the appellant is entitled to 50% of the back wages, calculated with all admissible benefits.
- ✓ The appellant has the liberty to challenge the resolution of the Full Court of the High Court dated 03.08.2023 and the termination order dated 02.04.2024 by filing a fresh writ petition before the High Court.
The Court stated, “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.”
The Court further noted, “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.”
The Court also clarified, “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.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this judgment.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ When a court sets aside a termination order, the employee is deemed to be in service and must be reinstated.
- ✓ Authorities are obligated to comply with court orders promptly and effectively.
- ✓ Failure to reinstate an employee after a termination order is set aside can lead to orders for back wages.
- ✓ Retrospective termination orders are generally not valid.
- ✓ Delays in implementing court orders can result in additional financial burdens on the authorities.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the reinstatement of the appellant and payment of back wages as specified in the judgment. It also granted liberty to the appellant to challenge the subsequent termination order before the High Court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a court sets aside a termination order, the employee is deemed to be in service and must be reinstated with back wages. This judgment reinforces the principle that court orders must be complied with promptly and effectively. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case clarifies the implications of setting aside a termination order.
Conclusion
In the case of Anantdeep Singh vs. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of a judicial officer and the payment of back wages, emphasizing the importance of complying with court orders. The Court held that once a termination order is set aside, the employee is deemed to be in service and must be reinstated. This judgment underscores the legal obligation of authorities to act promptly and fairly in such matters.