Read Time: 06 minutes
The allegations stemmed from a complaint accusing the judge of orchestrating a false rape case in connivance with a woman, while he was practicing as an advocate
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the reinstatement of an Additional and Sessions Judge, dismissed during his probationary period over allegations of “doubtful integrity.” The court also mandated the restoration of all associated benefits to the petitioner.
A Division bench comprising the Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sudhir Singh, heard the petition challenging the dismissal and ruled in favour of the petitioner, citing the lack of corroborative evidence.
The matter arose from a complaint against the petitioner, who was previously practicing as an advocate. It alleged that during his legal practice, the petitioner was involved in orchestrating a false rape case with the connivance of a woman. Additionally, the petitioner was accused of soliciting Rs. 1.50 lakh from the accused party in an attempt to settle the matter extrajudicially.
On April 18, 2017, the Full Court conditionally cleared the petitioner’s probation after reviewing his performance and Annual Confidential Report (ACR). This decision extended his probation, with his continued service dependent on resolving certain pending issues. One key factor was a 2014 complaint that led to negative ACR entries for 2015-16, questioning the petitioner’s integrity and performance. However, the complaint was dropped by the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee on October 31, 2019, and approved by the Chief Justice on November 4, 2019. The petitioner argued that this exoneration invalidated the basis of his conditional clearance and called for a review of the Full Court's decision.
The court deliberated on two key questions:
The bench observed that integrity cannot be questioned or doubted merely on the basis of allegations uncorroborated by any evidence. The court elaborated that while complaints form the basis of investigations or inquiries, punitive actions, especially against judicial officers, cannot rely solely on unsubstantiated allegations.
The court noted: “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. Still further, the submission of the learned counsel for the High Court that the Hon'ble Administrative Judge in the ACR for the year 2019-20 had recorded that the officer lacked confidence of detecting the evidence, was also one of the factors taken into consideration, while dispensing with his service, is not tenable, as the sole ground for dispensing with the services of the petitioner was the ACR for the period 2015-16.”
The court concluded that the grading of the petitioner for the year 2015-16 recorded as “C- Integrity Doubtful” could not be sustained. Therefore, the court directed his reinstatement with immediate effect with all consequential benefits.
Cause Title: Prem Kumar vs Punjab and Haryana High Court and another [CWP 4767 of 2022]
Please Login or Register
