In a significant decision, the Uttarakhand High Court has set aside the termination of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Deepali Sharma and directed her reinstatement with continuity of service and seniority. The court held that the inquiry leading to her dismissal was flawed and unsupported by evidence.
A division bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay quashed the Full Court resolution dated October 14, 2020, and the subsequent government termination order, observing that the inquiry process suffered from serious procedural lapses.
The allegations against Judge Sharma stemmed from an anonymous complaint received in 2018. It was claimed that she had kept a 14-year-old girl at her official residence in Haridwar, made her perform domestic chores, neglected her health, and subjected her to physical harm.
However, the High Court noted that both the girl and her father, who were the primary witnesses, denied all such allegations and instead confirmed that Sharma had treated the girl properly.
Criticising the manner of inquiry, the court pointed out that a raid conducted at Sharma’s residence in the Judges’ Colony in Haridwar in 2018 was done without the mandatory prior approval of then Chief Justice K M Joseph. No such approval was found on record.
Furthermore, despite the fact that several judges resided nearby, not a single witness came forward to corroborate the claims of misconduct. The bench questioned why a team of 18–20 officials was required to raid a lady judicial officer’s residence, calling it an excessive and unjustified step.
es of employing child labour. Instead, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the Uttarakhand Government Servants Rules, 2002, on grounds of general misconduct and integrity. The relevant rule prohibiting employment of minors for domestic work was never invoked.
Given these factors, the court held that the entire inquiry lacked evidentiary basis and procedural fairness.
Ordering her reinstatement, the High Court ruled that Sharma shall be deemed to have never been removed from service. While allowing her continuity of service and seniority, the court limited back benefits to 50% of what she would have otherwise been entitled to during the period of termination.
