In a significant decision, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the termination of a judicial officer who had been previously dismissed for allegedly entering into a second marriage while his first marriage was still valid. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, ruled in favour of reinstating the officer with continuity in service, though it permitted the High Court’s administrative side to potentially initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings with properly framed charges.
The case began in 2017 when allegations surfaced that the officer, appointed as an Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) in 2015, had married a second woman in 2013 under controversial circumstances. This woman was later reported missing, adding complexity to the allegations. A discreet inquiry in 2018 suggested that the marriage was conducted at Arya Samaj Mandir after the woman’s conversion, leading to recommended disciplinary action.
However, the judge contended that the so-called second marriage was a sham, intended only to satisfy the demands of the woman’s mother, and it occurred before he was even appointed as a judicial officer, thereby not violating any service rules.
The Full Court, however, found the charges proven and recommended his termination, which was executed by the state in 2021. But upon review, the Allahabad High Court found the charges to be vague and poorly framed, noting that they did not specify when the second marriage allegedly occurred and failed to consider the timing relevant to the officer’s appointment.
The Court also observed that there were no charges related to his conduct as a government servant, and the allegations were related to a period before his service commenced. It highlighted several procedural discrepancies and lack of consideration of critical aspects in the initial inquiry.
Furthermore, the Court raised questions about the interactions between the woman and a Purohit (priest), particularly why she had sought a marriage certificate both before and shortly after the alleged marriage, which was supposedly cancelled the next day.
The decision to reinstate the officer is conditional, pending possible new proceedings. However, the Court’s ruling emphasizes the need for clarity and thoroughness in disciplinary actions and charges. The officer’s legal representatives, Senior Advocate Gajendra Pratap and Advocate Mool Chandra, expressed satisfaction with the ruling, emphasizing the importance of proper legal procedures. Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra represented the High Court in this legal battle, which has drawn significant attention to the procedural integrity within the judicial system.
