In a landmark decision emphasizing due process and the need for substantiated evidence in judicial evaluations, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has reinstated Civil Judge Sangeet Pal Singh, who was previously dismissed over allegations of misconduct and alleged arbitrary actions. The court’s ruling in CWP No. 16658 of 2017 criticized the lack of procedural fairness in the disciplinary proceedings that led to Singh’s dismissal, reaffirming the importance of integrity and transparency in handling judicial officers’ records.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma, with Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, and Ms. Rishu Bajaj representing the petitioner. The respondents included the State of Punjab, represented by Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, and counsel for the second respondent, Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra and Ms. Mona Yadav.
Background of the Case
Judge Sangeet Pal Singh, who had been in judicial service since 1997 and held the position of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), was dismissed following adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) and a subsequent disciplinary inquiry. Allegations against Singh included “doubtful integrity,” use of abusive language toward court staff, and promotion of “groupism” within the legal community. The adverse entries in his ACRs for the years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 became the foundation for his reversion and eventual dismissal by the Government of Punjab in 2015.
Singh’s petition challenged the adverse remarks, arguing that they were baseless and procedurally flawed, claiming violations of principles of natural justice due to lack of prior notice, opportunity for defense, and transparency in the disciplinary proceedings. Singh also contested the inquiry’s findings, asserting that the process was biased and arbitrary.
Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The case centered on several legal principles, primarily the need for a fair inquiry and adherence to natural justice in disciplinary actions involving judicial officers. The court reviewed the procedural irregularities and lack of credible evidence against Singh:
1. Absence of a Fair Hearing: The bench observed that Singh was not given access to the materials used to formulate the adverse entries, nor was he afforded an opportunity to contest the evidence. This, the court held, was a violation of his right to a fair hearing. Justice Thakur emphasized that “disciplinary actions must be anchored in procedural fairness and transparency,” and that Singh was condemned without proper recourse to defend himself.
2. Lack of Reliable Evidence: Witness testimonies cited in the inquiry report were found to be contradictory. Several staff members, including those whose statements alleged misconduct, later admitted to fabricating complaints with the intent of transferring to more favorable postings. The bench found these testimonies insufficient to substantiate the charges against Singh, noting that the inquiry officer overlooked these inconsistencies.
3. Double Jeopardy Concerns: The court noted that Singh was subjected to multiple penalties for the same alleged misconduct, including demotion and eventual dismissal. Such actions breached the legal principle of double jeopardy, which guards against multiple punishments for the same offense.
4. Duty to Justify Adverse Remarks: Citing precedents, including Dr. Sanjeev Arya vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab, the court highlighted the need for solid evidence to justify adverse remarks against judicial officers, particularly concerning integrity. The court observed that unsupported claims of “doubtful integrity” severely harm judicial reputation and must be substantiated with proven misconduct, which was lacking in Singh’s case.
After assessing the procedural lapses and the inquiry’s inconsistencies, the court ruled in favour of Singh, quashing all adverse remarks and nullifying his dismissal order. Justice Thakur stated, “In cases of judicial evaluation, the foundation of procedural fairness is paramount; without it, punitive measures lack legitimacy.” The court further ordered the reinstatement of Singh’s entitlements, including benefits withheld since his dismissal.
