NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has directed for payment of full salary to a civil judge removed for allegedly having illicit relationship with a woman judicial officer, holding that once the termination order is set aside then the employee is deemed to be in service.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale said when judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition challenging the termination has been set aside, the natural consequence is that the employee should be taken back in service and thereafter proceeded with as per the directions.
In its recent judgment, the bench, while on a plea by Anantdeep Singh, noted that this court by its order of April 20, 2022 had asked the full court to reconsider the matter after setting aside the first termination order of 2009.
Yet, "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," the bench said.
The court directed that the appellant would be entitled to salary from the date of judgment of April 20, 2022 till fresh termination order was passed on April 02, 2024. It also directed for payment of 50 % of back wages for a period between 2009 and 2022.
The appellant, who had joined Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) in 2006, was terminated before completing three years probation in 2009.
Even after the top court's order of 2022, the High Court resolved to reiterate its earlier decision of 2009, terminating the services of the appellant. During the pendency of the instant plea, the state government passed the order of termination.
His counsel contended the complaint made by his wife and mother-in-law have been found as not credible and truthful with respect to the allegations of the illicit relationship. Other allegations like use of private car and not residing in official residence, made by them cannot be believed. He also pointed the woman judicial officer had already been reinstated after the apex court upheld the High Court's order disbelieving the charges.
As the court declined to go into merits of contention, it granted the appellant liberty to assail the fresh orders passed by the High Court and the state government.
