2024 (9) TMI 1768 - SC - Indian Laws

Reinstatement of the appellant/applicant into service as Civil Judge with all consequential benefits - HELD THAT - 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. There are 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. 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. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

1. The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

(a) Whether the appellant, whose termination order dated 17.12.2009 was set aside by this Court on 20.04.2022, ought to have been reinstated into service as a Civil Judge with all consequential benefits;

(b) Whether the respondents complied with the directions of this Court in the order dated 20.04.2022, particularly regarding reinstatement and payment of back wages;

(c) The legality and effect of the subsequent resolution of the Full Court of the High Court dated 03.08.2023 reiterating termination and the termination order dated 02.04.2024 issued by the State with retrospective effect from 17.12.2009;

(d) The propriety of passing a termination order with retrospective effect, especially when the appellant had not been reinstated after the earlier termination order was set aside;

(e) The adequacy and validity of the procedure followed by the High Court and the State in terminating the appellant's service during probation, including the reliance on allegations made by the appellant's wife and mother-in-law without an independent enquiry or opportunity to respond;

(f) The applicability of the judgment passed in the case of the lady judicial officer, who was similarly terminated but reinstated after the High Court disbelieved the allegations of an illicit relationship;

(g) The scope of this Court's intervention in reviewing the merits of the reconsideration by the High Court's Full Court and the termination order dated 02.04.2024.

2. Issue-wise detailed analysis:

(a) Reinstatement following setting aside of termination order:

The relevant legal framework is that when a termination order is set aside by a competent court, the natural consequence is reinstatement of the employee with all consequential benefits, including back wages. The Court observed that the appellant's termination order dated 17.12.2009 and the High Court judgment dismissing his writ petition were set aside by this Court on 20.04.2022. The Court emphasized that once the termination order is set aside, the employee is deemed to be in service and should be taken back into service forthwith.

The Court found that neither the High Court nor the State took any consequential action to reinstate the appellant after the order dated 20.04.2022. No decision was taken regarding back wages or salary arrears for the period between termination and reinstatement. The appellant was thus deprived of salary and benefits to which he was entitled.

The Court held that the appellant was entitled to full salary and benefits from the date of the judgment of this Court (20.04.2022) till the fresh termination order dated 02.04.2024. For the prior period from 18.12.2009 to 19.04.2022, the Court ordered payment of 50% back wages treating the appellant as in continuous service, balancing the interests of justice.

(b) Compliance with directions of this Court dated 20.04.2022:

The Court noted that its order of 20.04.2022 set aside the termination and directed the Full Court of the High Court to reconsider the matter without being influenced by previous observations. This was a clear indication that the earlier termination was not sustainable. However, the respondents merely reiterated their earlier decisions without fresh consideration or independent enquiry.

The Court found this inaction and reiteration of prior resolutions to be unjustified and non-compliant with the directions of this Court. The respondents' failure to reinstate the appellant or pay any salary despite the termination order being set aside was held to be contrary to the mandate of this Court.

(c) Legality of the Full Court resolution dated 03.08.2023 and termination order dated 02.04.2024:

The Full Court of the High Court, after referral to the Recruitment and Promotion Committee (RPC), reiterated its earlier decision to terminate the appellant's services. The State passed a termination order on 02.04.2024 with retrospective effect from 17.12.2009.

The Court refrained from entering into the merits of these subsequent decisions, noting that the appellant had liberty to challenge them by filing a fresh writ petition before the High Court. The Court emphasized that such challenge must be decided on its own merits without influence from the present order.

(d) Retrospective effect of termination order:

The appellant challenged the retrospective effect of the termination order dated 02.04.2024. He submitted that termination orders cannot be made effective retrospectively, citing precedent that dismissal orders operate prospectively from the date of service.

The Court acknowledged this submission and noted that the State did not address the issue of retrospective effect. However, since the matter was not being decided on merits, the Court did not quash the termination order but left the question open for fresh adjudication before the High Court.

(e) Procedure followed in terminating the appellant during probation:

The appellant contended that the termination was based solely on complaints made by his wife and mother-in-law, without any independent enquiry or opportunity to respond. No show cause notice was issued, and the reports relied upon were not corroborated by independent evidence.

The Court observed that the High Court, in the case of the lady judicial officer, had disbelieved similar allegations of an illicit relationship, holding that mere statements could not be treated as gospel truth to justify termination. The Court reproduced the High Court's observation that "her mere statement/perception like a gospel truth could not be acted upon to throw the appellant out of service. That was totally unjust."

Given that the main allegation against the appellant was of an illicit relationship, which was found to be baseless in the lady judicial officer's case, the Court found that reliance on these complaints for termination was misplaced. The minor allegations linked to the main allegation could not stand without corroboration.

(f) Applicability of judgment in the lady judicial officer's case:

The High Court had allowed the writ petition of the lady judicial officer and reinstated her after disbelieving the allegations of an illicit relationship. The appellant argued that he was entitled to similar benefit as his termination was also premised on the same allegations.

The respondent High Court argued that the appellant's case involved other serious allegations apart from the illicit relationship, and the High Court had excluded the illicit relationship allegation from consideration in its judgment dated 25.10.2018. Therefore, the appellant could not claim advantage from the lady judicial officer's case.

The Court did not decide on this contention but noted the different factual matrix and left the matter open for fresh consideration by the High Court.

(g) Scope of this Court's intervention:

The Court clarified that it was not entering into the merits of the reconsideration by the Full Court or the termination order dated 02.04.2024. The appellant was at liberty to challenge these before the High Court by way of a fresh writ petition. The present order was confined to the question of compliance with the earlier order dated 20.04.2022 and the entitlement of the appellant to reinstatement and back wages.

3. Significant holdings:

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."