Punjab: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the Punjab government’s decision to prematurely retire a judge couple, emphasizing that the criteria for judicial officers are different and more stringent. However, the court quashed the order that treated the husband judge’s suspension period as leave and ordered the recovery of ₹23,86,664 from the alimony already paid to him. The petitioners—Ravinder Kumar Kondal and his wife Asha Kondal, who served as Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional District Judge in Punjab—had filed a petition in the High Court seeking the quashing of the state government’s order to prematurely retire them on the court’s recommendation.
Ravinder Kumar Kondal appealed for the quashing of the September 7, 2015, order that directed his premature retirement with effect from October 5, 2015. In a separate petition, his wife also challenged the order granting him premature retirement from November 29, 2017. The High Court’s Administrative Committee, considering his overall service record, work, and conduct, recommended that the petitioners not be permitted to continue in service beyond the age of 50. Before the order granting him premature retirement was passed, some complaints had been received against him.
Following the complaints, disciplinary action was initiated against both petitioners. The lawyers representing the petitioners argued that a review of their confidential reports would reveal that their careers were unblemished and that a single report, which was mediocre, could not be used as a basis for premature retirement. After hearing the arguments, Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor said: “We find no merit in the Respondents’ action to prematurely retire the Petitioners based solely on disciplinary proceedings that have not been finalized. After examining the ACRs, we are of the view that the observations regarding integrity were not solely based on disciplinary proceedings; other deficiencies such as punctuality, shirking, or work, etc., were also observed.”
However, the Bench observed that since the Full Court had decided that the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioners were to be stayed, the decision to treat the period of suspension as leave of kind due and order recovery based on that cannot be sustained. The decision to grant premature retirement and recovery order after the disciplinary proceedings have been stayed would be unreasonably unjust and contrary to the fundamental principles enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the above discussion and conclusion, the application of the wife judge is dismissed, while the application of the husband judge is allowed to some extent and the order for recovery of the maintenance already awarded to him is quashed.
