Summary
A judicial officer sought reinstatement after resigning following a midterm transfer and summary rejection of requests addressing her daughter’s education. Independently examining the record, the Court found the transfer affected by malice in law and the representation decisions arbitrary. In these peculiar circumstances the resignation was not voluntary. Its acceptance was quashed and immediate reinstatement ordered with service continuity and consequential benefits, excluding back wages.
Issues
- Whether the midterm transfer and rejection of the officer’s representations were legally sustainable.
- Whether her resignation was voluntary when assessed in its surrounding circumstances.
- What reinstatement relief followed.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaAdministrative transfer decisions required fair consideration of relevant policy and materials; arbitrary rejection of the representations failed this standard. (¶¶ 39-41, 54-66)
Held
- Although the transfer policy was an internal guideline, it generated a legitimate expectation of due consideration. The officer’s request for temporary retention and her distinct alternative-posting request were rejected without the required examination of relevant circumstances. (¶¶ 37-50, 63-66)
- The asserted administrative grounds were not substantiated. The transfer rested on unverified complaint allegations rather than germane policy factors and was vitiated by malice in law. The Court did not need to determine personal mala fides attributed to the judge concerned. (¶ 51-62)
- Voluntariness could not be assessed from the resignation’s words alone. The unlawful transfer, arbitrary rejection of both requests, family circumstances and rapid acceptance showed that frustration left the officer without a real alternative in this particular case. The resignation could not be construed as voluntary. (¶ 67-87)
- The Court did not examine the sexual-harassment allegations, adopt the foreign constructive-discharge doctrine, or sit in appeal over the Full Court’s later reinstatement resolutions. It decided the transfer, representations and resignation issues independently on the record. (¶¶ 11, 29-36, 91-95)
- The probation and delay objections failed on the service history and the officer’s prompt, continuing pursuit of relief. The writ petition was partly allowed: acceptance of resignation was quashed and reinstatement directed forthwith, with continuity and consequential benefits from 15 July 2014 but no back wages. (¶¶ 88-89, 97-98)
Result
Writ petition partly allowed. Acceptance of the involuntary resignation quashed; immediate reinstatement as Additional District and Sessions Judge directed, with continuity and consequential benefits from 15 July 2014, excluding back wages. No costs.