ANANTDEEP SINGHversusTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH & ANR.

                  [2024] 9 S.C.R. 135 : 2024 INSC 673

                         Anantdeep Singh
                                 v.
               The High Court of Punjab and Haryana
                       at Chandigarh & Anr.
                 Miscellaneous Application No. 267 of 2024
                                     in
                      (Civil Appeal No. 3082 of 2022)
                              06 September 2024
    [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       Miscellaneous application is filed by the appellant seeking direction
       to reinstate him into service as civil judge with all the consequential
       benefits in view of the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the
       Supreme Court in C.A.No. 3082 of 2022.

                                   Headnotes†
       Judicial Service – Matrimonial discord between appellant and
       his wife – Allegations against the appellant of having an illicit
       relationship with a lady judicial officer – The Full Court of the
       High Court accepted the report of the Committee of Judges
       dated 04.12.2009 and appellant along with the lady judicial
       officer were terminated from the services – Aggrieved, both
       appellant and lady judicial officer filed separate writ petitions –
       The writ petition filed by the lady judicial officer was allowed
       and her termination order was set aside – However, the writ
       petition filed by the appellant was dismissed – Assailing
       the correctness of the judgment, appellant filed SLP – On
       20.04.2022, this Court set aside the impugned judgment of
       the High Court dated 25.10.2018 and termination order dated
       17.12.2009 and directed the Full Court of the High Court to
       reconsider the matter – The Full Court of High Court in its
       meeting dated 03.08.2023 reiterated its earlier decision of
       terminating appellant – Correctness:
       Held: Once the termination order is set aside and judgment of
       the High Court dismissing the writ petition challenging the said


* Author
136                                                            [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       termination order has also been set aside, the natural consequence
       is that the employee should be taken back in service and thereafter
       proceeded with as per the directions – Once the termination order
       is set aside then the employee is deemed to be in service –
       There is no justification in the inaction of the High Court and also
       the State in not taking back the appellant into service after the
       order dated 20.04.2022 – 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 –
       During the pendency of the said M.A., the State of Punjab
       passed an order dated 02.04.2024 terminating the services
       of the appellant with retrospective effect i.e. 17.12.2009 –
       In any case, the appellant was entitled to salary from the date
       of judgment dated 20.04.2022 till fresh termination order was
       passed on 02.04.2024 – Insofar as the period from 18.12.2009
       i.e., after the termination order of 17.12.2009 was passed till
       19.04.2022 the date prior to the judgment and order of this
       Court, the ends of justice would be served by directing that the
       appellant would be entitled to 50 percent of the back wages
       treating him to be in service continuously – Such back wages to
       be calculated with all benefits admissible under law to the
       appellant as if he was in service – Insofar as the challenge to
       the resolution of the Full Court of the High Court dated
       03.08.2023 and termination order dated 02.04.2024 is concerned,
       the appellant would be at liberty to challenge the same by
       way of a writ petition before the High Court which may be decided
       on its own merits. [Paras 21, 22, 23]

                                Case Law Cited
       State Bank of Patiala and another v. Ramniwas Bansal (dead)
       through Lrs. [2014] 3 SCR 984 : (2014) 12 SCC 106; State of
       Punjab v. Balbir Singh [2004] Supp. 4 SCR 368 : (2004) 11 SCC
       743; State of Punjab and others v. Sukhwinder Singh [2005] Supp.
       1 SCR 580 : (2005) 5 SCC 569; State of Punjab and others v.
       Rajesh Kumar [2006] Supp. 9 SCR 208 : (2006) 12 SCC 418;
       Bishan Lal Gupta v. State of Haryana [1978] 2 SCR 513 :
       (1978) 1 SCC 202; State of Punjab v. Sukh Raj Bahadur [1968] 3
       SCR 234; High Court of Patna v. Pandey Madan Mohan (1997) 10
       SCC 409 – referred to.
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                                137

                        Anantdeep Singh v.
     The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr.

                                  List of Acts
     Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service)
     Rules, 1994.

                              List of Keywords
     Judicial service; Matrimonial discord; Illicit relationship; Termination
     of services; Reinstatement; Consequential benefits; Back wages.

                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application No.
     267 of 2024
     In
     Civil Appeal No. 3082 of 2022
     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2022 of the Supreme
     Court of India in C. A. No. 3082 of 2022
                          Appearances for Parties
     P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Ashok K. Mahajan, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Gaurav Dhama, A.A.G., Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Rahul Gupta,
     Ms. Nupur Kumar, Ms. Niharika Tanwar, Advs. for the Respondents.
                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                  Judgment
     Vikram Nath, J.
1.   Miscellaneous Application No. 267 of 2024 has been filed by the
     appellant Anantdeep Singh praying for the following reliefs:
           “i) direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant/
           applicant into service as Civil Judge with all consequential
           benefits in view of the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by
           this Hon’ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 3082 of 2022 arising
           out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33435 of 2018;
           ii) Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court
           may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
2.   Before we deal with the aforesaid application, it would be necessary
     to refer to the relevant facts giving rise to the present application:
138                                                        [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       2.1. The appellant was a judicial officer with the Punjab Civil
            Services (Judicial Branch) since 2006. Under the Punjab Civil
            Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules,
            1994, period of probation under Rule 7 thereof is for three
            years which was to continue till December 2009. At the time
            of joining the service in December 2006, the appellant was
            already married, however, the marriage was not going very
            smoothly and quite often there would be disputes between the
            appellant and his wife. In order to avoid the situation getting
            worse, the appellant left the official accommodation and shifted
            to a private accommodation. His wife and mother-in-law
            continued to reside in the official accommodation. Sometime
            in November/December 2008, the wife of the appellant made
            a complaint as a result of which the appellant was called by
            not only the District Judge but also the Administrative Judge
            concerned in December 2008 and February 2009. The
            appellant explained his position and clarified why he was
            residing in a private accommodation. No written explanation
            was called from the appellant regarding the complaint made
            by his wife at that stage.
       2.2. It was only vide communication dated 06.04.2009, that the
            appellant was called upon to answer as to whether he was
            residing in the official accommodation. Immediately, the
            appellant responded vide letter dated 07.04.2009 and a further
            letter dated 20.04.2009 stating that he had moved out of his
            official accommodation apprehending danger to his life and to
            avoid any undue incident and was residing with his maternal
            uncle. On 22.04.2009, the appellant filed a petition seeking a
            decree of divorce. At the same time, the appellant -mother-in-
            law, who was also a government servant working as Principal
            of a Government College at Faridkot, met the District and
            Sessions Judge and complained about the appellant with regard
            to the dispute with his wife. The District and Sessions Judge,
            Faridkot forwarded his report on 20.05.2009 to the Registrar
            General of the High Court mentioning the matrimonial dispute
            of the appellant.
       2.3. In November 2009, reports were called regarding the review
            of work of all judicial officers on probation by the Committee
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                          139

                        Anantdeep Singh v.
     The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr.

           of Judges In Charge of review of work and conduct of the
           probationers. The report is said to have been sent by the District
           and Sessions Judge on 27.11.2009 stating that the work and
           conduct of the appellant was satisfactory. Thereafter, it appears
           that the Registrar General of the High Court again wrote to
           the District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot to send a detailed
           report regarding the appellant in particular, concerning the
           allegations against the appellant of having an illicit relationship
           with a lady judicial officer. The Administrative Judge on the
           same day i.e. 01.12.2009, gave his remarks based on the
           report of the District and Sessions Judge dated 20.05.2009.
           The Committee of the Judges overseeing the work and conduct
           of the probationers, gave its opinion that the appellant was
           not fit to continue in service and further, decided that the lady
           judicial officer, with whom the appellant was said to be having
           a relationship, be identified and she may also be confronted
           with the said allegations.
     2.4. On 02.12.2009, the District and Sessions Judge after recording
          the statement of the appellant’s wife and the alleged lady judicial
          officer, forwarded his report in which it was stated that wife of
          the appellant had clearly alleged that her husband was having
          an illicit relationship with a lady judicial officer who was then
          posted at Phagwada because of which the appellant used to
          harass his wife. The Committee of Judges overseeing the work
          and conduct of the probationers on 04.12.2009 recommended
          that the appellant and also the lady judicial officer were not fit
          to be retained in the service.
     2.5. The Full Court of the High Court in its meeting dated
          07.12.2009 accepted the report of the Committee of Judges
          dated 04.12.2009 and resolved that the services of not only the
          appellant but also the lady judicial officer were to be terminated
          by an order of Termination Simpliciter. The work was withdrawn
          from the appellant on 07.12.2009. The resolution of the Full
          Court dated 07.12.2009 was accepted by the State of Punjab
          and an order was passed on 17.12.2009 dispensing with the
          services of the appellant. On the same day, another order was
          passed by the State of Punjab dispensing the services of the
          lady judicial officer.
140                                                            [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       2.6. Aggrieved by the said termination, the appellant filed CWP
            No. 9003 of 2010 before the High Court. Similarly, the lady
            judicial officer filed a separate petition registered as CWP
            No. 8250 of 2010 challenging her termination. The Division
            Bench of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated
            25.10.2018, dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. On
            the very next day i.e., 26.10.2018, the same Division Bench
            of the High Court allowed the writ petition of the lady judicial
            officer, set aside the termination order, after disbelieving the
            allegations of an illicit relationship.
       2.7. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana preferred SLP (Civil)
            No. 4894 of 2019 assailing the correctness of the judgment
            dated 26.10.2018 passed in the case of the lady judicial officer
            which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2019.
            Thereafter, the lady judicial officer was reinstated and is working.
       2.8. The appellant preferred SLP (Civil) 33435 of 2018 assailing the
            correctness of the judgment dated 25.10.2018 passed by the
            High Court dismissing the writ petition. The SLP filed by the
            appellant was taken up on 03.03.2022 and after hearing the
            parties to some extent, the matter was adjourned. However,
            the Court required the counsel for the High Court of Punjab
            and Haryana to obtain further instructions in the matter after
            orally observing that it was prima facie of the view that the
            appellant also deserves to be reinstated in service.
       2.9. The counsel for the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
            communicated the observations made by this Court to the
            Registrar General, vide communication dated 04.03.2022.
            However, the Registrar General of the High Court replied vide
            communication dated 11.03.2022 with the instructions that the
            matter may be argued on merits.
       2.10. On 20.04.2022, when the matter came up before the Court, after
             hearing the learned senior counsel for the parties, this Court
             granted leave and allowed the appeal after setting aside the
             impugned judgment of the High Court dated 25.10.2018 and
             the Termination Order dated 17.12.2009. It further requested
             the Full Court of the High Court to reconsider the matter. The
             order dated 20.04.2022 is reproduced below:
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                       141

                        Anantdeep Singh v.
     The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr.

                “Leave granted.
                We have heard Mr. P.S.Patwalia, learned senior
                counsel for the appellant and Mr. Nidhesh Gupta,
                learned senior counsel for the respondent-High Court
                of Punjab and Haryana and perused the relevant
                material placed on record.
                We are of the considered view that the Full Court of
                the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
                needs to reconsider this matter.
                Therefore, the impugned order dated 25th October,
                2018 and the order passed by the Principal Secretary
                to Government, Punjab, Department of Home Affairs
                and Justice on 17th December, 2009 terminating the
                services of the appellant herein are set aside.
                We, however, request the Full Court of the High
                Court of Punjab and Haryana to reconsider the matter
                without being influenced by any of the observations
                made by the Division Bench of the High Court in the
                impugned order.
                The appeal accordingly stands disposed of in terms
                aforesaid.”
     2.11. No consequential orders were passed by the State after the
           order dated 20.04.2022 whereby the termination order of the
           appellant dated 17.12.2009 passed by the State Government
           was set aside. The High Court however, took up the matter
           on the administrative side. The Full Court in its meeting
           dated 16.09.2022 referred the matter to the Recruitment and
           Promotion Committee (RPC). Seven months thereafter, the
           RPC reiterated its earlier decision dated 04.12.2009, relying
           upon the note of the Administrative Judge dated 01.12.2009
           and also the report of the District and Sessions Judge dated
           20.05.2009. The recommendation of the RPC dated 12.04.2023
           is reproduced hereunder:
                “...Reconsideration of Hon’ble Full Court decision
                dated 07.12.2009 regarding dispensing with the
                services of Sh. Anantdeep Singh, former member of
142                                               [2024] 9 S.C.R.

            Digital Supreme Court Reports


       P.C.S. (J.B.), in view of judgment dated 20.04.2022
       passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special
       Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33435 of 2018 titled as
       “Anantdeep Singh Vs. The High Court of Punjab and
       Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr.”
       Sh. Anantdeep Singh, had joined P.C.S. (J.B.) on
       12.12.2006. On the recommendation of this Court,
       his services were dispensed with, during probation,
       vide Punjab Government order dated 17.12.2009.
       The officer relinquished charge on 24.12.2009. The
       CWP No. 9003 of 2010 filed by him, against the
       order dated 17.12.2009 of Punjab Government, was
       dismissed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court.
       vide judgment dated 25.10.2018. Thereafter, Sh.
       Anantdeep Singh had filed SLP (Civil) No. 33435
       of 2018 titled as “Sh. Anantdeep Singh vs. the High
       Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and
       Another” against the judgment dated 25.10.2018 of
       this Court. While disposing of the appeal, Hon’ble
       Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 20.4.2022, had
       set aside the impugned order dated 25th October
       2018 and the order passed by the Principal Secretary
       to Government, Punjab, Department of Home Affairs
       and Justice on 17th December, 2009 terminating the
       services of the appellant and requested the Full Court
       of this Court to reconsider the matter.
       The matter was reconsidered by Hon’ble Full Court in
       its meeting held on 16.09.2022 and it was resolved
       that the matter be referred to Hon’ble Recruitment and
       Promotion Committee (Subordinate Judicial Services)
       for examining the same and report. After thoroughly
       re-examining the matter in entirety particularly
       the observations of the then Administrative Judge
       contained in note dated 01.12.2009 as also the report
       of District and Sessions Judge dated 20.05.2009 and
       the fact that the officer was merely a probationer and
       the decision was taken within the prescribed period, at
       this stage the Committee is not in a position to come
       to any different conclusion on the basis of material
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                           143

                        Anantdeep Singh v.
     The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr.

                on record. Thus, the Committee reiterates its earlier
                decision dated 04.12.2009.”
     2.12. As the matter was further delayed and no decision was being
           taken and that the appellant had not been taken back in
           service despite the termination order having been set aside,
           the appellant filed M.A. No. 655 of 2023, which was disposed
           of by order dated 04.05.2023, requesting the Full Court of the
           High Court to decide the matter within three months. It was
           thereafter that the Full Court of the High Court in its meeting
           dated 03.08.2023 resolved to reiterate its earlier decision dated
           07.12.2009, terminating the services of the appellant.
     2.13. The appellant filed a petition before this Court under Article 32
           of the Constitution of India registered as W.P.(Civil) No. 976
           of 2023 which was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to
           explore other legal options which may be available to move
           before the High Court vide order dated 22.09.2023. The said
           order is reproduced hereunder:
                “Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel does not
                wish to press this writ petition under Article 32 of the
                Constitution and would explore other legal options
                which may be available to move the High Court.
                Taking note of the above submission of the learned
                senior counsel, the writ petition stands dismissed
                as not pressed, reserving the liberty as aforesaid.”
     2.14. The appellant in the meantime approached the High Court
           under Right to Information Act, 2005 requesting for a copy of
           the letter dated 04.03.2022 written by the counsel for the High
           Court to the Registrar General. This letter was made available
           on 11.10.2023. It was thereafter that the present M.A. was
           filed on 31.10.2023.
     2.15. During the pendency of the said M.A. and when the State of
           Punjab was also called upon to be served with the copy of
           M.A., vide order dated 29.01.2024 and with the matter being
           listed on several occasions, the State of Punjab passed an
           order dated 02.04.2024 terminating the services of the appellant
           with retrospective effect i.e. 17.12.2009. The said order dated
           02.04.2024 has been filed along with I.A. No. 110912 of 2024.
144                                                          [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


3.     It is on the above set of facts that we have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia,
       learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri Nidhesh
       Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for High Court of Punjab
       and Haryana and Shri Gaurav Dhama, learned Additional Advocate
       General for the State of Punjab.
4.     The submissions advanced by Shri P.S. Patwalia are to the effect
       that the judgment and order of this Court dated 20.04.2022 has not
       been complied with by the respondents. The respondents ought to
       have taken back the appellant in service and thereafter proceeded to
       take the decision as directed by this Court. Further it was submitted
       that it took almost two years for the respondents to take a fresh
       decision. During this period, the appellant has neither been reinstated
       in service nor been paid any salary, no arrears have been paid from
       17.12.2009, the date of the earlier termination order even though
       the same had been set aside by this Court.
5.     It was also submitted by Mr. P.S. Patwalia that this Court in all its
       humility had not quashed the decision of the Full Court but having
       given serious thought to it, had clearly observed that this Court
       was of the considered view that the Full Court of the High Court of
       Punjab and Haryana needs to reconsider this matter which in itself
       is a clear indication that this Court had expressed its view on the
       resolution of the Full Court regarding termination of the appellant’s
       service to be not sustainable. It was thereafter that this Court had
       set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 25.10.2018 and the
       Termination order dated 17.12.2009.
6.     It is also submitted on behalf of the appellant that the RPC and also
       the Full Court of the High Court have simply reiterated their earlier
       resolutions and as such there has been no reconsideration of the
       matter, the resolutions placed on record are also non-speaking.
7.     It is also the submission of Mr. Patwalia that the complaint against
       the appellant was given by his wife and his mother-in-law. The entire
       contents of the reports submitted by the District and Sessions Judge
       and also the Administration Judge and the Review Committee are
       based on the complaint made by the wife and his mother-in-law. No
       independent enquiry was conducted, nor any show cause notice was
       issued to the appellant calling upon him to give a response to the
       complaint made by his wife and mother-in-law.
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                           145

                         Anantdeep Singh v.
      The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr.

8.   It was also submitted that the main allegations made by the wife and
     mother-in-law relates to the appellant carrying on an illicit relationship
     with the lady judicial officer. The other complaints alleged were of
     residing outside the official accommodation and of using a private
     car, which did not belong to him. It was also alleged in the complaint
     that the appellant had threatened and assaulted his wife. All the other
     allegations apart from the main allegations of illicit relationship with
     the lady judicial officer, were linked to the aforesaid main allegation.
9.   The High Court, on the judicial side in the case of the lady judicial
     officer, found that there was not even any remote evidence regarding
     their illicit relationship and that the statement of the wife could not be
     taken as a gospel truth to throw the said lady judicial officer out of
     service, and it was found to be totally unjust. The findings recorded
     by the High Court in the judgment dated 26.10.2018 with respect to
     the illicit relationship is reproduced hereunder:
           “At the outset, we are at a loss to find even remote evidence
           about any illicit relationship from the above except use of
           the word “illicit relations”. That apart, her mere statement/
           perception like a gospel truth could not be acted upon to
           throw the appellant out of service. That was totally unjust”
10. It was submitted that once the complaint of the wife and mother-in-
    law of the appellant were not found to be credible and truthful with
    respect to the allegations of an illicit relationship, any reliance placed
    upon the said complaints with respect to minor allegations of using
    a private car not belonging to the appellant and of threatening and
    assaulting cannot be relied upon without there being any further
    corroboration. No reliance can be placed on the said complaints at all.
11. Mr. Patwalia thus submitted that this Court may not only allow the
    M.A. as prayed but may also consider setting aside the Termination
    order now passed on 02.04.2024 with retrospective effect from
    17.12.2009 and reinstate the appellant back in service with full back
    wages and all consequential benefits.
12. It is also submitted that there could not have been any backdating
    of the Termination order being made effective from a previous date.
    The Termination order can be effective only from the date it is served
    on the employee. As such the order dated 02.04.2024 deserves to
    be quashed.
146                                                         [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                             Digital Supreme Court Reports


13. Mr. Patwalia has relied upon the judgment of this Court in State
    Bank of Patiala and another vs. Ramniwas Bansal (dead) through
    Lrs.;1 for the proposition that the dismissal order cannot be made
    with retrospective effect, and it would only have prospective effect.
14. Before we deal with the submissions of Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned
    senior counsel appearing for the High Court, we may mention the
    response of the State as put forth by Additional Advocate General.
    According to Mr. Gaurav Dhama the State did not pass any
    consequential order after the order dated 20.04.2022. He further
    submitted that the order dated 02.04.2024 has been passed as per
    the resolution of the Full Court of the High Court. He, however, did
    not address the issue as to whether the termination order could have
    been passed making it effective from an earlier date.
15. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the High
    Court justified not only the subsequent compliance affected by the
    High Court and also the resolution of the Full Court of the High
    Court to terminate the service of the appellant w.e.f. the earlier date
    and also the termination order issued by the State Government on
    02.04.2024. On a specific query as to how the High Court could
    have proceeded against an officer who was not taken into service
    by passing a resolution of terminating the services from the previous
    date, he has sought to mix the issue by submitting that as the
    appellant was a probationer and his services were terminated as a
    probationer, if he was taken back in service during the period, the
    High Court was to take a fresh decision as required by this Court,
    then he would be treated as a regular employee because the period
    of probation under the Rules is only for a limited period of maximum
    three years and not beyond.
16. Mr. Gupta also had no answer as to why the High Court took one and
    half years to take the decision. He however expressed his inability
    to explain the delay on the part of the State for issue of termination
    order after eight months of the resolution of the Full Court of the High
    Court. Mr. Gupta further addressed the Court raising the point that
    any preliminary enquiry conducted to ascertain the suitability of a
    probationer and if termination follows without giving an opportunity, it
    will not be bad and will be a case of motive. In effect, the submission


1      [2014] 3 SCR 984: (2014) 12 SCC 106
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                            147

                         Anantdeep Singh v.
      The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr.

     is that the probationer’s service could be dispensed with without
     holding a formal enquiry or giving an opportunity to the probationer
     and the employer was well within his right to dispense the service
     of the probationer by conducting the preliminary enquiry to ascertain
     the suitability. In this connection, he has placed reliance upon the
     following judgments:
     .i      State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh;2
     .i      State of Punjab and others vs. Sukhwinder Singh;3
     iii.    State of Punjab and others vs. Rajesh Kumar;4
     iv.     Bishan Lal Gupta vs. State of Haryana;5
     v.      State of Punjab vs. Sukh Raj Bahadur;6 and
     vi.    High Court of Patna vs. Pandey Madan Mohan.7
17. Mr. Gupta, while further addressing on merits, submitted that it was not
    just the allegation of having illicit relationship with lady judicial officer
    but there were other very serious allegations which were unbecoming
    of a judicial officer and since the appellant was a probationer, the
    Full Court of the High Court found him unsuitable for continuing in
    service and accordingly he was dismissed from the service.
18. He further submitted that in the case of the lady judicial officer whose
    petition was allowed by the High Court and has since been reinstated
    to the service, the only allegation against the said lady judicial officer
    was of carrying on an illicit relationship with the appellant which the High
    Court found was without any basis or supporting material. According
    to him, in the present case, the High Court in the judgment dated
    25.10.2018 had clearly held that it was omitting the allegations of illicit
    relation with the lady judicial officer from consideration and further
    relied upon other allegations of misconduct or unsuitability against the
    appellant and therefore, the appellant cannot claim any advantage
    or benefit from the judgment in the case of the lady judicial officer.


2   [2004] Supp. 4 SCR 368 : (2004) 11 SCC 743
3   [2005] Supp. 1 SCR 580 : (2005) 5 SCC 569
4   [2006] Supp. 9 SCR 208 : (2006) 12 SCC 418
5   [1978] 2 SCR 513 : (1978) 1 SCC 202
6   [1968] 3 SCR 234 : (1968) 3 SCR 234
7   (1997) 10 SCC 409
148                                                       [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


19. Having considered the submissions advanced, at the outset, we
    make it clear that we are not entering into the merits of the matter
    i.e., the reconsideration by the High Court in the Full Court meeting
    held on 03.08.2023 and the termination letter issued by the State
    on 02.04.2024. These orders could be tested before the High Court
    by way of a fresh writ petition to be filed by the appellant and such
    liberty having been granted by this Court in the writ petition under
    Article 32 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellant which
    was withdrawn on 22.09.2023. For the above reason, the case laws
    relied upon by Mr. Gupta are not being dealt with nor are we dealing
    with the case laws relied upon by Mr. Patwalia.
20. We are only dealing with the M.A. No. 267 of 2024 where the appellant
    has prayed that he should be reinstated into service as Civil Judge
    with all consequential benefits in view of the order dated 20.04.2022
    passed by this Court allowing the appeal.
21. Once the termination order is set aside and judgment of the High Court
    dismissing the writ petition challenging the said termination order has
    also been set aside, the natural consequence is that the employee
    should be taken back in service and thereafter proceeded with as
    per the directions. Once the termination order is set aside then the
    employee is deemed to be in service. We find no justification in the
    inaction of the High Court and also the State in not taking back the
    appellant into service after the order dated 20.04.2022. 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. In any case, the appellant was entitled to salary from
    the date of judgment dated 20.04.2022 till fresh termination order
    was passed on 02.04.2024. The appellant would thus be entitled
    to full salary for the above period to be calculated with all benefits
    admissible treating the appellant to be in continuous service.
22. Insofar as the period from 18.12.2009 i.e., after the termination
    order of 17.12.2009 was passed till 19.04.2022 the date prior to
    the judgment and order of this Court, we are of the view that ends
    of justice would be served by directing that the appellant would be
    entitled to 50 percent of the back wages treating him to be in service
    continuously. Such back wages to be calculated with all benefits
    admissible under law to the appellant as if he was in service.
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                        149

                        Anantdeep Singh v.
     The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr.

23. Insofar as the challenge to the resolution of the Full Court of the High
    Court dated 03.08.2023 and termination order dated 02.04.2024 is
    concerned, the appellant would be at liberty to challenge the same
    by way of a writ petition before the High Court which may be decided
    on its own merits totally uninfluenced by any observations made in
    this order. The facts and observations made are only with respect
    to the disposal of the M.A. No. 267 of 2024.
24. M.A. stands disposed of accordingly.

     Result of the case: M.A. disposed of.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan