Notice was given to the judge two days before retirement, then the pension was stopped keeping the law in check, know how SC got justice
The decision taken by the High Court by going beyond the law was rejected by the Supreme Court. Also ordered that the woman judge be paid the entire amount along with 9 percent interest.
By serving a notice to a civil judge in Odisha just two days before his retirement, the High Court stopped his pension along with all the benefits he gets after the end of his service. The judge challenged the decision in the Supreme Court. The decision taken by the High Court by going beyond the law was rejected by the Supreme Court. Also ordered that the woman judge be paid the entire amount along with 9 percent interest.
The woman judge was serving as the Registrar of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal from 28 June 2012 to 1 November 2015. Meanwhile, advertisement was taken out regarding the posts of caretaker. After completing the due process, all the posts were filled. However, the selection process was challenged first in the Administrative Tribunal and then in the Orissa High Court. The writ was dismissed from both the places. But after that the High Court started a departmental inquiry. In this, it was ordered to investigate the process of filling the post of caretaker.
Departmental inquiry was started regarding the recruitment of caretaker
It would not have mattered if the matter had remained here. However, two days before the retirement, a letter was issued to the lady judge saying that huge rigging has been found in the recruitment of caretakers. Then a charge sheet was filed against the lady judge. However, the judge said that he could not be punished in this way, as under section 7 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, a judicial officer can be convicted only in such a case, which is not less than the termination of service. Be at least four years ago. This case does not fall in that category. While the other side said that the notice was given to the woman judge while she was still in her job. The chargesheet is part of that chain. In this case, Rule 7 does not apply.
The Supreme Court agreed, the High Court violated the law
Supreme Court Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Ajay Rastogi, after looking into the entire matter, agreed that the action taken against the woman judge is a violation of Rule 7. Therefore, along with departmental inquiry, other action is rejected outright. The Supreme Court said in the judgment that the entire amount should be paid to the woman judge along with 9 percent interest from the day the pension and other benefits were stopped.
