Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Reinstatement Of Judge Who Was Expelled Over Alleged Misconduct Committed As A Lawyer

Update: 2025-01-17 14:35 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed to reinstate an additional and sessions judge with consequential benefit, who was dispensed from service during the probation period on account of "doubtful integrity" . On the basis of a complaint made against the judge, in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2015-16 recorded by the then Administrative Judge, the OSD...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed to reinstate an additional and sessions judge with consequential benefit, who was dispensed from service during the probation period on account of "doubtful integrity" . 

On the basis of a complaint made against the judge, in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2015-16 recorded by the then Administrative Judge, the OSD (Vigilance) Haryana in his preliminary enquiry report (dated 28.05.2016) had concluded that the acts and conduct of the judge, when he was practicing as an Advocate amounts to professional misconduct. Considering the report the High Court had terminated his service.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sudhir Singh noted that there is nothing on record except the complaint to infer that the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful due to any extraneous consideration or otherwise.

Speaking for the bench Justice Sudhir Singh highlighted that the Full Court decision passed in 2021 and the recommendations of the Recruitment and Promotion Committee (Superior Judicial Service) made in 2022, approved by the Full Court in 2022, did not notice the dropping of the proceedings in the complaint filed and treated the ACR of the petitioner as 'B+Good' as final, for the year 2014-15.

"Therefore, applying the same ratio which was made basis for treating the provisional remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 2014-15 as final, the remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 2015-16 do not hold the ground and, therefore, there being no material except the complaint ,the proceedings wherein were dropped, the said remarks could not have been made the basis," said the bench.

A complaint was made against an additional and sessions judge that while he was practising as an advocate a false rape case was registered by a woman in connivance with him and it was alleged that the officer (who was then lawyer) approached the accused to settle the matter and received Rs.1.50 lakh.

The preliminary Inquiry report of the OSD (Vigilance) Haryana dated 28.05.2016 found the conduct of the petitioner, while practicing as an advocate at Barnala amounts to professional misconduct. It was further pointed out that in the ACR for 2015-16, the overall grading of the petitioner was recorded as C (Integrity Doubtful) and in the integrity column, it was recorded that his integrity being doubtful, he was not fit to be retained in the service.

Thereafter, the matter regarding consideration of clearance of the probation period of the petitioner was placed before the Recruitment and Promotion Committee (Superior Judicial Service) and the said Committee in its meeting held on 11.02.2022 recommended that the petitioner be treated not to have successfully cleared his probation period and his services be dispensed with.

The aforesaid report of the Committee was placed before the Full Court which in its meeting held on 07.03.2022 resolved to dispense with the services of the petitioner with immediate effect and in the meanwhile, to withdraw the judicial work from the petitioner.

It was, thus, asserted that as the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful and his probation was subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings against him, his services were rightly dispensed with.

After examining the submissions, the Court rejected the argument representing the High Court that the integrity doubtful recorded in ACR, was not merely based on the complaint stating that the argument "is not tenable in the eyes of law as there is nothing on record except the aforesaid complaint which was admittedly dropped later on, to indicate that the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful."

In the light of the above, the Court directed the respondents to upgrade the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2015-16, and to re-instate him in service with immediate effect with all consequential benefits.

Title: Prem Kumar v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 20

Click here to read/download the order 

Full View


Tags:    

Similar News