E-Paper
HC upholds decision to sack judicial officer for taking foreign trips sans permission
The Punjab government passed a termination order of officer Abhinav Kiran Sekhon after a recommendation from the full court of high court communicated on December 15, 2020.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has upheld the decision to sack a judicial officer who travelled to Doha and the United Kingdom in 2019 without the requisite permissions.
“An officer who repeatedly committed acts of insubordination/suppression during the period of probation would continue with such acts and inappropriate behaviour unabated after confirmation, setting a bad example for the other judicial officers. The said course of action would not at all be desirable,” the bench of acting chief justice GS Sandhawalia and justice Lapita Banerji observed while refusing to interfere with the high court’s decision on the administrative side.
The Punjab government passed a termination order of officer Abhinav Kiran Sekhon after a recommendation from the full court of high court communicated on December 15, 2020.
Sekhon joined in April 2016 and completed training in April 2017. He initially served as a civil judge (junior division) at Ferozepur and thereafter, took some more assignments, when his termination orders were passed in April 2021. In the probe initiated, after a random checking by the administrative judge of Patiala district courts, it had come to light that Sekhon undertook two trips to Doha and the United Kingdom, without permissions, and subsequently when he was asked to explain, he “misrepresented facts”.
“...there is continuous insubordination on the part of the officer which rendered him unsuitable for judicial service. …if such acts were continued, the same might encourage other officers to act in defiance of the orders passed by the high court with impunity,” the administrative judge had opined in his report
recommending his removal. Acting on the report, subsequently, full court approved the decision to sack him. It was this decision, he had challenged on the judicial side.
The bench observed that the scope of interference in judicial review is extremely limited and the court has to review only the ‘decision-making process’ and not the ‘decision’ itself. The high court, on its administrative side, evaluated the acts and conduct of the judicial officer based on the recommendation of the vigilance committee on the recommendations of the administrative judge. “The procedure has been correctly followed leading to the recommendation of the full court to the government for dispensation of service of the judicial officer,” the bench said, adding that there is no infirmity in such a ‘decision-making process’ which merits interference.
