The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the reinstatement of a Judicial Officer removed from service due to a complaint by his wife, who was also a Judge, holding that he was deprived of a fair opportunity to defend himself.

The Court allowed the Petition praying for the issuance of a Writ to quash the Order dispensing with the Petitioner’s service as a Probationer from Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch).

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal remarked, “The report of Administrative Judge with regard to work and conduct of the petitioner is also without granting him an opportunity of being heard. Substantially, it can be concluded, the report of the Administrative Judge is based on the complaint filed by the petitioner's former wife. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was deprived of the fair opportunity to defend himself.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Atma Ram represented the Petitioner, while Addl. A.G. Naveen S. Bhardwaj appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner joined the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) on probation where he received "Good" ratings in his Annual Confidential Reports. His training was successfully completed and he qualified the departmental examination. However, his engagement and subsequent marriage to a fellow judicial officer, became strained, and she later filed a complaint against him.

The complaint was submitted to an Administrative Judge, who attempted to reconcile the dispute between the two, but subsequently filed a report. The report stated the Petitioner’s conduct as "unbecoming of a judicial officer" and recommended termination. This recommendation formed the basis for a decision by the Review Committee, leading to his dismissal without a formal inquiry or issuance of a charge sheet.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court noted that the foundation of the Order dispensing with Petitioner's service was the complaint filed by his former wife and the report submitted by the Administrative Judge.

The relevant Committee has also in its proceedings recorded…relied upon the report of the Administrative Judge. It is evident that petitioner was never issued any charge sheet. He claims that he was not even supplied copy of the complaint or the statement of his former wife recorded by the Registrar General. He was called in the office of the Registrar General and was asked to give his response there and then,” the Bench remarked.

Consequently, the Court held, “Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, this court is left with no choice but to order the petitioner's reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and seniority. However, the respondent shall have the liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings, if so advised.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.

Cause Title: Peeyush Gakhar v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:007130-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rajiv Atma Ram; Advocates Brijesh Khosla and Shreya Kaushik

Respondents: Addl. A.G. Naveen S. Bhardwaj; Advocate Ashok K. Bhardwaj

Click here to read/download the Judgment