HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. GANESH RAM BERMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned senior counsel for the appellant, assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur. Also heard Mr. B.N. Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner along with Mr. T.K. Jha and Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent No.2.

(2.) This writ appeal is presented against an order dtd. 13/5/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.825 of 2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner / respondent No.1 in the appeal, was allowed by setting aside the order of termination dtd. 6/2/2017 passed by the Principal Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, observing that the same would not bar the appellant No.1 herein i.e., the High Court of Chhattisgarh to proceed in accordance with law. Direction was issued to reinstate the petitioner along with all consequential service benefits except back-wages. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority within 30 days claiming back-wages and it was observed that on such representation being made, the competent authority would consider the claim of back-wages within next 60 days in accordance with law keeping in view the relevant rules and regulations.

(3.) The writ petitioner was directly appointed as District Judge (Entry Level) by an order dtd. 30/10/2014 in terms of Rule 5 (1)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2006'). While the petitioner was in probation period, a letter dtd. 31/8/2016 was issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Raipur, enclosing thereto a copy of anonymous complaint making certain allegations against three judicial officers including the petitioner and the report of the Registrar (Vigilance) on the allegations made against the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 24/9/2016. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the order of termination dtd. 6/2/2017 based on the recommendation of the High Court in terms of Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 2006.