9 years on, HC sets aside judicial officer’s dismissal

More than nine years after a judicial officer was dismissed from service with immediate effect, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed and set aside the order. The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti also quashed an earlier order reverting the officer as Civil Judge Junior Division from the post of Additional Civil Judge Senior Division.

“Resultantly, the petitioner is ordered to be forthwith reinstated in service along with all consequential benefits except monetary,” the Bench ruled, while allowing the petition filed against the State of Punjab and another respondent by officer Sangeet Pal Singh through senior advocate DS Patwalia with Rishu Bajaj.

The Bench ruled that the impugned order dated March 10, 2015, asserted the reversion order, serving as the foundation for the dismissal order, included adverse remarks entered in the annual confidential report that violated the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner was neither granted an opportunity for a personal hearing regarding the adverse remarks in the ACR, nor was he provided the material justifying the remarks. The lack of opportunity effectively disabled the petitioner from contesting the remarks with a cogent rebuttal, leading to the conclusion that he was condemned unheard.

“Given the fact that the foundational material for the recording of the adverse entry in the ACR remained un-forwarded to the petitioner, naturally he became disabled to ably contest the same by adducing cogent rebuttal evidence. It may be concluded that the principles of natural justice, as such, become un-adhered to,

thereby the petitioner became condemned unheard,” the court observed.

The Bench was also of the view that various representations against the adverse remarks were rejected. Yet, there was no indication in the record that the petitioner was afforded a chance to contest the decisions on these representations.

“There is no material on record suggestive that during the course of the decisions being made on the representations, the petitioner was granted an opportunity of personal hearing, or if granted he was permitted to avail an opportunity to either ask for the material justifying the making of the entry or his being permitted to avail a further opportunity to rebut the said adduced material,” the court added.

Giving reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, the Bench among other things observed one of the prosecution witnesses testified that he was informed about an incident where the petitioner allegedly abused a colleague but clarified that he did not witness any such occurrence. A defence witness, working with the petitioner, stated he never witnessed any abusive behaviour from the petitioner.

Petitioner didn’t get chance to be heard

...the foundational material for the recording of the adverse entry in the ACR remained unforwarded to the petitioner, naturally he became disabled to ably contest the same by adducing cogent rebuttal evidence...the principles of natural justice, as such, become un-adhered to... — High Court