The Uttarakhand High Court recently ordered the reinstatement of a judicial officer who was dismissed from service in 2020 over a complaint alleging that she employed a 17-year-old girl as domestic help at her residence and abused her physically and mentally [Deepali Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand & another].

A Bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay said that the case against Civil Judge (Senior Division) Deepali Sharma was not only a case of “no evidence” but a case of “carefully crafted edifice without a foundation”.

“It could also be termed as a mountain made out of a molehill,” the Bench said in the verdict dated January 06.

The Court censured the judicial officers who were involved in the inquiry against Sharma, stating that the manner and method in which they had gone about in demonstrating the charges was shocking. 

“It is alarming because all the persons involved are trained judicial officers,” it added.

In particular, the Court flagged the lapses in medical examination of the victim.

“The lapses, more particularly, the omission to have the medical certificate spoken through a qualified doctor leaves us aghast,” the Bench said.

It also pointed to the failures of the High Court administration, which was headed by then Chief Justice KM Joseph, who was later elevated to the apex court. The complaint and material against the judicial officer ought to have been placed before the Chief Justice, it opined.

“It is apparent that electronic mode of communication has been claimed to have been predominantly used, even to the extent of getting the concurrence of the then Hon’ble Chief Justice for issuing an order of suspension. If that be so, it was imperative that proof of the same ought to have been placed, more so, when the petitioner was questioning the authenticity of the orders claimed to have been passed by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice,” the Court added.

The Court also questioned the High Court’s failure to provide Sharma the documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer. 

“What really startled us and engaged our curiosity and compelled us to look deeper was the, 660 paragraphs on 356 page gargantuan inquiry report in respect of a simple issue of “employing a minor as a domestic help”,” it said in the 130-page verdict.

The Court expressed shock at the manner in which the civil judge’s residence was raided with a huge police force, along with two videographers.

“If such diligent efforts had been taken, probably, a few terrorist could have been arrested. The manner and method raises questions and leaves us wondering as to whether it is a case of over-kill or motivated? The questioning of the victim/minor child was done outside the house and in the open which also leaves us wondering whether it was aimed at shaming the petitioner. So much is said about the clothing that the minor child wore, yet the entire exercise has been carried out in the open of the very said winter month, and a mere glance at the transcription is enough to demonstrate that the exercise was a lengthy one,” the Bench remarked.

The apparent reason was to shame the judge than render any justice as video recordings were shared in the media, the Court added. In one stroke, the petitioner stood publicly condemned, the judgment reads.

“The officers concerned in their attempt to demonstrate their holier than thou attitude failed to recognize the harm that it had caused to the standing of the Institution in public. 

Though, we have serious reservations about the manner and method adopted by the District Judge, we have refrained from initiating any action at this distant point of time and certainly summoning a lady officer to the doorstep even for a purported inquiry, in our considered opinion, was belittling the post she held. By the said exercise, they have not merely belittled the person involved but also the post that she was holding and cause incalculable damage to the standing of the Institutions resulting in the petitioner being condemned and pronounced guilty even before completion of the preliminary inquiry,” the Court said. 

The Court ordered that Sharma shall be deemed to have continued in service from the date of removal from service. It has also been directed that she be granted all consequential benefits, including seniority above those who were junior to her.

“In respect of salary and all other monetary benefits, in view of long period and passage of time, we are of the opinion that it would be inequitable to burden the State Exchequer to pay 100% of the arrears for work not rendered. Hence, the petitioner would be entitled to 50% of the all monetary benefit, including pay etc. The pay shall be revised and re-fixed,” the Court ordered.

Pertinently, the criminal prosecution launched by the State against Sharma was withdrawn later. 

Senior Advocates Rajendra Dobhal with Advocates Aditya Pratap Singh and Shubhang Dobhal represented the judge.

Advocate Shobhit Saharia represented the High Court.

Standing Counsel Gajendra Tripathi appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]