Allahabad High Court reinstates judge who was terminated for marrying a second time

The Allahabad High Court recently set aside the termination of a judicial officer who was accused of marrying the second time during the subsistence of his first marriage.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla also ordered reinstatement of the officer with continuity in service. 

However, the Bench left it open to the High Court, on its administrative side, to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings after framing proper charges against the officer.

“As regards arrears of salary, etc. a decision in this regard shall be taken as per Rules only after conclusion of fresh proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioner by the opposite parties. If such proceedings are not initiation within six month, then a decision shall be taken in this regard in terms of 54-A of the Financial Handbook Volume II Part II to IV or such other Rule as may be applicable,” the Court ordered.

The officer was appointed as an Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) in 2015. As per the record, he had married a woman in December 2013 and they have a girl child.

However, in 2017, a complaint was made that he had married another woman, a Muslim, in October 2013. The complaint was made at a time when that woman was reported to be missing.

In 2018, a discreet inquiry was ordered into the allegations and it was found that the judge had married that woman at Arya Samaj Mandir after her conversion. Accordingly, action was recommended action against him.

This led to a Vigilance Inquiry and disciplinary proceedings against the judge. In response, the judge had submitted that actually no marriage had taken place between him and that woman.

It was only a sham marriage to help the woman, his friend of 13 years, to placate and satisfy her mother who was pressing for her marriage, the judge claimed. It was also argued that the same had happened before he joined the service and thus there was no violation of the service rules.

However, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the charges had been found proven. On that basis, the Full Court in 2020 recommended the judge’s termination. Accordingly, the State in 2021 issued the order for removal.

Having analyzed the record, the Court opined that the charge levelled against the officer was quite vague. It noted that the charge did not even mention when the second marriage had taken place. 

“Thereafter, the charge goes on to say that the petitioner had failed to maintain uprightness and that the said conduct was in contravention of the norms of conduct prescribed for a Judicial Officer, wholly oblivious of the fact that on the relevant dates when the alleged marriages were solemnized in the year 2013 the petitioner had not even been selected for appointed as Judicial Officer, what to say of having been appointed, therefore, the framing of the said charge based on conduct, etc. expected of a Judicial Officer makes the non-application of mind at the time of framing of charge apparent,” the Court said.

It added that the service conduct rules invoked against the officer apply only to a government servant. The incidents which led to the charge took place prior to him having joined the service, the Court observed.

“There is no charge levelled against the petitioner regarding his conduct as a Government servant. The allegations in the chargesheet pertain to a period prior to his joining service as a Judicial Officer, when he was not a Government servant.”

The Court opined that these relevant aspects had not been taken into consideration while framing the charge against the officer nor were they taken into consideration during the inquiry.

Further, it noted there was no allegation that the officer had anything to do with the disappearance or kidnapping of that woman. In conclusion, the Court said the judicial officer’s version required better consideration.

Particularly, the Court pointed to the Purohit’s statement that the woman in question had approached him two or three times for getting marriage certificate and she came with the judicial officer only after that.

“Why did xxx meet the Purohit alone and asked for a marriage certificate without the marriage having been solemnized? Why did she go to the Purohit to get the marriage certificate cancelled, they very next day of marriage? These questions have not been dealt in the inquiry report nor by the Disciplinary Authority. Now, all this when viewed in the light of the stand of the petitioner required a deeper scrutiny than done by the Inquiry Officer who, in fact, has not considered these aspects nor the Rule position as already discussed”.

It was also noted that the inquiry officer had ignored the fact that the woman in question, while applying for various competitive examinations, had never mentioned herself to be his wife.

However, the Court clarified that it was not giving any conclusive opinion with regard to the alleged marriage. The very charge was factually and legally erroneous and unsustainable, it reasoned.

“The impugned orders are accordingly quashed,” ordered the Court while giving relief to the judge.

Senior Advocate Gajendra Pratap and advocate Mool Chandra represented the judicial officer.

Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra represented the High Court.