KAMAL VARINDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner-Ms. Kamal Varinder has put to challenge the order dated 17.12.2009 (Annexure P-4) whereby her services as a member of PCS (Judicial Branch)/JM, Phagwara have been dispensed with and has prayed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on 26.10.2006 (Annexure P-1) and joined her services as a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, on 08.12.2006 pursuant to the said appointment order. After mandatory training, she was granted B+ final grade and she started performing her duties in various district courts, namely Ropar and Phagwara. There was no complaint against her about her work and duties.

(3.) On 03.12.2009, when the petitioner was working as a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, an explanation was sought from her by respondent No.3 that a complaint was made by Navpreet Sandhu, wife of Anantdeep Singh against the petitioner that she was trying to interfere with the matrimonial life of Navpreet Sandhu and Anantdeep Singh and that she had illicit relationship with Anantdeep Singh. Suddenly, on 07.12.2009 (Annexure P-1B), the petitioner's work was withdrawn. The petitioner was shocked and as such made representation on 14.12.2009 to the High Court in which she stated that false and frivolous allegations were leveled against her by Navpreet Sandhu when she had nothing to do with their matrimonial dispute. The petitioner was unnecessarily roped in and made to suffer on account of alleged matrimonial dispute between Navpreet Sandhu and Anantdeep Singh in the absence of any specific allegations and on her bald statement. Not only that, it came to her notice that Navpreet Sandhu and Anantdeep Singh had resolved their matrimonial dispute by withdrawing all the proceedings and complaints and so also the divorce petition. But the petitioner was made scapegoat for no reasons. On 24.12.2009, the petitioner was served with the order dated 17.12.2009 dispensing with her services with immediate effect on the ground that she had failed to clear her probation period satisfactorily. The petitioner's performance and work was very good and with utmost integrity and honesty. That was clear from the fact that her ACR for the year 2008-2009 was B+ good so also the quality of the judgments and the work. The petitioner decided large number of cases and there was no reason for dispensing with her services on such a hoax. There is no male member in her family since her father and younger brother had already expired and she has ten years old daughter and has to look after her mother suffering from cancer.