In a sharp message on judicial ethics and misuse of authority, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the dismissal of former Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pradeep Synghal, ruling that his conduct amounted to acting as a “de facto recovery agent,” which is “misconduct unbecoming of a judicial officer.”
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel delivered the verdict in CWP-6448-2024 (O&M) on Monday, dismissing Synghal’s writ petition challenging his dismissal. The court found no procedural or legal infirmity in the disciplinary inquiry that led to the termination of his service.
Background of the Case
Pradeep Synghal joined the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial) in 2011 and rose to the position of Civil Judge (Senior Division), posted at Jagraon. In December 2020, following complaints by local advocates and litigants, he was suspended and later charge-sheeted on July 14, 2021.
The core allegations revolved around Synghal’s collusion with private parties—notably complainants Pankaj Mittal and Vikas Mittal—in entertaining and adjudicating seven criminal complaints in a “stereotypical and mechanical manner,” allegedly fabricating jurisdiction to bring the cases under his court and issuing summons without following the due procedure under Section 202 CrPC.
It was also alleged that Synghal misused court staff to serve summons outside Punjab, including in Maharashtra and Bihar, in violation of procedural mandates. Additional charges included financial irregularities in court challan books and alleged intimidation of a process server to suppress material evidence.
Inquiry and Findings
Following a detailed fact-finding inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted her report on January 7, 2023, holding charges 1, 2, and 4 to be duly substantiated.
The Vigilance and Disciplinary Committee of the High Court accepted the findings on July 31, 2023, and recommended dismissal. The Full Court of the High Court approved the recommendation on October 6, 2023, and the State of Punjab issued Synghal’s dismissal order on November 14, 2023.
Arguments by the Parties
Senior Advocate Vijay Kumar Jindal, appearing for the petitioner along with advocates R. Kartikeya, Pankaj Gautam, and Abhishek Shukla, argued that the entire proceedings were malicious and initiated due to personal vendetta. They contended that Synghal had maintained judicial integrity and that no substantial evidence linked him to the alleged misconduct.
On the other hand, Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate with Ranjeet Singh Kalra and Seerat representing the High Court, and Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior Deputy Advocate General for the State, defended the inquiry process. They emphasized that all procedures were followed, and sufficient evidence—including oral testimonies, mobile records, and court documents—supported the charges.
Court’s Observations and Decision
In a detailed judgment, the bench dismissed the petition, holding that:
“Issuing summons without adherence to the statutory provisions of Section 202 CrPC, in favour of personally known complainants and facilitating their ulterior motives, amounts to misconduct unbecoming of a judicial officer.”
The court found that Synghal acted in collusion, abusing judicial discretion and functioning not as a neutral arbiter, but effectively as a “de facto recovery agent” for private parties.
Citing key witnesses like Ravi Kumar (Process Server), who testified about being intimidated and sent to Nasik on verbal instructions, and corroborating mobile location records, the court noted:
“The findings were not based on conjecture but on a painstaking appraisal of both oral and documentary evidence.”
The court also reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in departmental inquiries, holding that it would not interfere unless the process was shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or violative of natural justice:
“The scope of interference is limited to ensuring fairness in treatment rather than fairness in the ultimate conclusion reached.”
It further emphasized:
“Judicial officers must not only be impartial but must also be perceived to be so. Any departure from this standard erodes public confidence in the justice system.”
The High Court concluded that Synghal was given ample opportunity to defend himself and that the inquiry was procedurally sound. Dismissing the writ petition, the court upheld the termination order.
