High Court Reinstates Punjab Judicial Officer Who Was Dispensed From Service During Probation For Allegedly Misbehaving With On Duty Doctors

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed reinstatement of a judicial magistrate, who was dispensed from service during probation period for allegedly misbehaving with on duty doctors conducting enquiry into the death of a prisoner.

On the basis of the video clips of the alleged incident, the Vigilance Committee of the High Court had concluded that the judge misbehaved with the doctors and said her conduct is "unbecoming of a judicial officer". 

The division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma however said, "dispensing with the services of the petitioner, purportedly as a probationer, is but punitive as well as stigmatic, and that too, without adherence being made to the mandate enclosed in Section 65-B of the Evidence Act."

The Court noted that the judge was entitled to full fledged enquiry before dispensing her from service and the committee should have complied with the principles of natural justice.

These observations were made while hearing the writ petition of Nazeem Singh, who qualified the Punjab Civil Services Judicial Exam in 2015 and was appointed as Judicial Magistrate in the year 2016.

While Singh was posted at Chandigarh, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, addressed a letter in 2018 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Chandigarh, intimating about the death of a prisoner at P.G.I.M.E.R. Chandigarh, on account of his suffering from Asthma and AIDS. A request was also made to get the inquest proceedings conducted from a Judicial Magistrate.

The CJM had in turn directed the petitioner to conduct the inquest proceedings regarding death of the prisoner. Accordingly, the petitioner constituted a medical board consisting of doctors for conducting an autopsy for ascertaining the cause of death of the prisoner.

However, a complaint was made by members of the said medical board to the Director of P.G.I.M.E.R. Chandigarh, levelling allegations of misconduct against the judge.

Consequently, enquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance) who then directed the OSD (Vigilance) of the High Court to submit a report after inquiring into the allegations. 

A meeting of the disciplinary committee was convened  and it summoned a doctor and considered the video clip of the alleged misbehaviour to conclude that the judge should be dispensed from service.

Senior Counsel appearing for the judge submitted that there are several lapse in conducting the enquiry like, only one doctor of the Board was summoned and the video clip was not supported by the certificate required under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

After hearing the submissions, the Court perused the "minutes of meetings" of the enquiry and found that the service of the judge was dispensed with without conducting full fledged enquiry, the principles of natural justice were also flouted and the order was "ridden with the vice of gross arbitrariness."

The Court noted that only one of the complainant-doctors was summoned to appear before the inquiry officer, whereas, the other doctors who were also required to remain present were not summoned.

The bench observed that the video clip was accepted on mere production, "that too, without holding a full fledged inquiry, but begets an ill consequence that the principles of natural justice become completely breached."

Reliance was also placed on Apex Court's decision in V.P. Ahuja V/s State of Punjab to underscore that "A probationer, like a temporary servant, is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice.”

Observing that the principles of natural justice remain non-complied with, the Court directed to reinstate the judge "forthwith...with continuity of service and along with all consequential benefits, except monetary benefits."

Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate and Ms. Bhavyashri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3.

Title: Nazeem Singh V. State of Punjab & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 275

Click here to read/download the order