Supreme Court reinstates judicial officer discharged during probation: Abhay Jain vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 15 March 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 268
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Vineet Saran, J.

Can a judicial officer on probation be discharged from service based on an inquiry into alleged misconduct, or does such an action require compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of *Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan*, concerning the termination of a judicial officer during his probation period. The core issue was whether the discharge was a simple termination due to unsatisfactory performance or a punitive action disguised as a simple discharge.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, delivered the judgment, with Justice Vineet Saran authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Abhay Jain, joined as a judicial officer in 2013. He was discharged from service in 2016. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed his writ petition challenging the discharge, which led to this appeal before the Supreme Court.

Jain was appointed as an Additional District Judge in 2013 after topping the District Judge Examination. He was placed on probation for two years. During his tenure as Sessions Judge, Anti-Corruption Department (ACD), Bharatpur, he granted bail to an accused, K.K. Jalia, which became the basis for the action against him. Jalia was accused of taking a bribe. Jain’s predecessors had rejected Jalia’s bail applications. Later, the Rajasthan High Court granted bail to the other co-accused in the case.

The High Court initiated a departmental inquiry against Jain for alleged misconduct and violation of conduct rules. The inquiry alleged that Jain should not have granted bail to Jalia as there was no change in circumstances since the rejection of his earlier bail applications. The High Court also noted that Jain had rejected a similar application of another co-accused earlier.

The Higher Judicial Committee, after inspecting Jain’s records, decided not to recommend his confirmation. Subsequently, the Full Court decided to discharge Jain, citing unsatisfactory service during probation, despite the pending inquiry. The inquiry was later closed, with the right to reopen it reserved.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed Abhay Jain’s writ petition, observing that the discharge order, though appearing to be a simple termination, was passed due to the inquiry initiated against him. The High Court noted that Jain was aware of the High Court’s dismissal of Jalia’s earlier bail petition when he granted bail. The High Court concluded that there was no change in circumstances warranting interference by Jain in granting bail.

The High Court held that the inquiry was not the foundation of the discharge order but merely a motive to assess Jain’s service record. It relied on the principle that even if a departmental inquiry has started, a simple termination order can be passed without it being considered punitive if no findings were recorded on the charges.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India: This article provides safeguards to civil servants against arbitrary dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank. It mandates an inquiry with a reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing any such penalty, unless certain exceptions apply.
• Rule 45 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (RJS Rules): This rule deals with the confirmation of a probationer in the service. It states that a probationer shall be confirmed if the Court is satisfied that he is fit for confirmation.
• Rule 46 of the RJS Rules: This rule pertains to unsatisfactory progress during probation and the extension of the probation period. It allows the Appointing Authority to discharge a member of the service if they have failed to give satisfactory performance.
• Rule 3 and 4 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971: These rules outline the general conduct expected of government servants, including maintaining integrity, devotion to duty, and avoiding improper or unbecoming conduct.
• Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section mandates prior sanction for prosecution of public servants.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The discharge order was not based on “unsatisfactory performance” as required by Rules 45 and 46 of the RJS Rules, but was instead rooted in the inquiry initiated against him. Therefore, it was punitive and violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
• There was no valid complaint against him. The three complaints relied upon were never communicated to him and were closed prior to the Higher Judicial Committee meeting.
• The Higher Judicial Committee’s recommendation was solely based on the bail order dated 27.04.2015. The Enquiry Judge was also part of the Higher Judicial Committee.
• The High Court failed to explain how the allegation of misconduct related to the bail order was not the foundation of the termination order.
• The appellant relied on State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad [AIR 1960 SC 689], arguing that termination after an inquiry without following Article 311(2) is illegal.
• He argued that the High Court misapplied Director, Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences vs Devendra Joshi [(2018) 15 SCC 73].
• Relying on Ishwar Chand Jain vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana [(1988) 3 SCC 370] and Pradip Kumar vs Union of India [(2012) 13 SCC 182], he contended he was not given an opportunity to improve and was not informed of his unsatisfactory performance.
• He argued that he had a good record and that the bail order was not challenged before the High Court.
• The appellant contended that he listed the matter for 27.04.2015 to give the prosecution an opportunity to obtain sanction and file a reply and that no reply was filed by the State.
• The appellant argued that the contradictory orders passed on 27.04.2015 showed that he had no malice or motive.
• The charges against him were vague, with no details on extraneous considerations or ulterior motives.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The discharge was a discharge *simpliciter* and not based on any single act of impropriety. It did not attach any stigma to the appellant.
• The disciplinary proceedings were closed, and a simple termination order was passed, which is permissible.
• The employer can choose not to continue an employee against whom allegations are made, even if the truth is not ascertained.
• Relying on Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. [(1999) 2 SCC 21] and Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences [(2002) 1 SCC 520], the respondent argued that a simple termination order is valid if no findings were recorded on the charges.
• The reliance on Pradip Kumar (supra) was misplaced as the discharge therein was violative of the rules.
• The court should not examine the truth of the allegations but whether the employer had the right to discharge a probationer.
• The respondent argued that the appellant passed two conflicting orders on 27.04.2015, failed to consider High Court orders, and adjourned the bail application multiple times but did not wait for the prosecution sanction.
• The respondent contended that the appellant had conflicting stands regarding his knowledge of the High Court order dated 11.03.2015.
• The respondent relied on Rajasthan High Court vs. Ved Priya (Civil Appeal No. 8933-34/2017), arguing that good ACRs do not guarantee a right to continue in service.
• Relying on Bimla Devi vs State of Bihar [(1994) 2 SCC 8], the respondent contended that the appellant’s action should not be interpreted as a bona fide mistake but as negligence.
• The High Court had received three complaints against the appellant, even if they were closed.
• The appellant failed to establish any procedural irregularity warranting interference by the Court.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. “Whether the action of non-confirmation of the Appellant is in accordance with Rules 45 and 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010?”

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the nature of termination of a probationer:

• State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad [AIR 1960 SC 689] – Supreme Court of India: Held that if a probationer is discharged based on an inquiry into misconduct, it is punitive and requires compliance with Article 311(2).
• Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab [(1974) 2 SCC 831] – Supreme Court of India: Held that the substance of the order, not the form, determines if a termination is punitive. If the facts and circumstances indicate that the termination is by way of punishment, then a probationer is entitled to the protection of Article 311.
• Sukhdev Singh vs Union of India [(2013) 9 SCC 566] – Supreme Court of India: Held that every entry in an ACR must be communicated to the public servant within a reasonable period.
• Ishwar Chand Jain vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana [(1988) 3 SCC 370] – Supreme Court of India: Held that judicial officers should be given guidance and opportunities to improve, and termination should not be based on minor mistakes without corrupt motives.
• Ramesh Chander Singh vs High Court of Allahabad [(2007) 4 SCC 247] – Supreme Court of India: Disapproved initiating disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers for wrong judgments unless there are strong grounds to suspect mala fides.
• P.C. Joshi vs State of U.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 491] – Supreme Court of India: Held that disciplinary action should not be initiated merely because a wrong order was passed, unless there is evidence of corrupt motive.
• Krishna Prasad Verma vs State of Bihar [(2019) 10 SCC 640] – Supreme Court of India: Held that wrong orders should not lead to disciplinary actions unless there is evidence of extraneous reasons.
• Sadhna Chaudhary vs State of U.P. [(2020) 11 SCC 760] – Supreme Court of India: Held that mere suspicion cannot constitute misconduct and that relief-oriented judicial approaches cannot be grounds to cast aspersions on the honesty and integrity of an officer.

On simple termination vs. punitive action:

• Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. [(1999) 2 SCC 21] – Supreme Court of India: Held that a simple termination order is valid if no findings were recorded on the charges, even if a departmental inquiry was started.
• Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences [(2002) 1 SCC 520] – Supreme Court of India: Held that a termination is punitive if there was a full-scale formal inquiry into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct, culminating in a finding of guilt.
• Director, Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences vs Devendra Joshi [(2018) 15 SCC 73] – Supreme Court of India: The High Court had relied on this case to hold that the discharge order was simpliciter, but the Supreme Court distinguished it on facts.
• Rajasthan High Court vs. Ved Priya (Civil Appeal No. 8933-34/2017) – Supreme Court of India: The respondent had relied on this case to hold that good ACRs do not guarantee a right to continue in service, but the Supreme Court distinguished it on facts.

On the interpretation of rules:

• Rule 45 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010
• Rule 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010
• Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971
• Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971

On other issues:

• Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248] – Supreme Court of India: Held that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• Bimla Devi vs State of Bihar [(1994) 2 SCC 8] – Supreme Court of India: The respondent had relied on this case, but the Supreme Court distinguished it on facts.
• Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad [AIR 1960 SC 689]*: Followed. The Court relied on this case to hold that a discharge based on an inquiry into misconduct is punitive.
• Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab [(1974) 2 SCC 831]*: Followed. The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the substance of the order, not the form, determines if a termination is punitive.
• Sukhdev Singh vs Union of India [(2013) 9 SCC 566]*: Followed. The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of communicating ACRs to public servants.
• Ishwar Chand Jain vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana [(1988) 3 SCC 370]*: Followed. The Court relied on this case to hold that judicial officers should be given guidance and opportunities to improve.
• Ramesh Chander Singh vs High Court of Allahabad [(2007) 4 SCC 247]*: Followed. The Court relied on this case to disapprove initiating disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers for wrong judgments.
• P.C. Joshi vs State of U.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 491]*: Followed. The Court relied on this case to hold that disciplinary action should not be initiated merely because a wrong order was passed.
• Krishna Prasad Verma vs State of Bihar [(2019) 10 SCC 640]*: Followed. The Court relied on this case to hold that wrong orders should not lead to disciplinary actions unless there is evidence of extraneous reasons.
• Sadhna Chaudhary vs State of U.P. [(2020) 11 SCC 760]*: Followed. The Court relied on this case to hold that mere suspicion cannot constitute misconduct.
• Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. [(1999) 2 SCC 21]*: Distinguished. The Court distinguished this case, stating that the present case involved a punitive discharge.
• Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences [(2002) 1 SCC 520]*: Distinguished. The Court distinguished this case, stating that the present case involved a punitive discharge.
• Director, Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences vs Devendra Joshi [(2018) 15 SCC 73]*: Distinguished. The Court distinguished this case on facts, stating that the inquiry was only preliminary.
• Rajasthan High Court vs. Ved Priya (Civil Appeal No. 8933-34/2017)*: Distinguished. The Court distinguished this case on facts, stating that the present case did not involve multiple instances of illegal orders.
• Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248]*: Followed. The Court relied on this case to hold that non-communication of ACRs was arbitrary.
• Bimla Devi vs State of Bihar [(1994) 2 SCC 8]*: Distinguished. The Court distinguished this case on facts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Punitive Nature of Discharge: The Court concluded that the discharge was not a simple termination but a punitive action due to the inquiry into the bail order. This triggered the protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
• Lack of Unsatisfactory Performance: The Court found no evidence of unsatisfactory performance in the appellant’s record, except for the bail order. The ACRs were mostly positive, and the complaints were either closed or not communicated to the appellant.
• No Opportunity to Improve: The Court emphasized that the appellant was not given an opportunity to improve, which is a requirement under the rules.
• Competence to Pass the Bail Order: The Court held that the appellant was competent to pass the bail order, and the State did not challenge it. The appellant’s decision was based on the non-grant of prosecution sanction and the grant of bail to co-accused.
• Absence of Malice, Extraneous Considerations, or Ulterior Motives: The Court found no evidence of malice, extraneous considerations, or ulterior motives on the part of the appellant.
• Importance of Judicial Independence: The Court reiterated that judicial officers should not be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for wrong orders unless there is evidence of mala fides or corrupt motives.
• Non-Communication of Complaints: The Court noted that the complaints against the appellant were not communicated to him and were closed, rendering them irrelevant for the purpose of the discharge.
• Arbitrariness: The Court emphasized that the discharge was arbitrary, and that it was not in accordance with the rules. The Court also noted that the non-communication of ACRs was arbitrary.

Sentiment Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning displays a strong sentiment against arbitrary actions by the employer. There is a clear emphasis on fair treatment, due process, and the protection of judicial independence. The Court’s language is critical of the High Court’s decision and strongly favors the appellant’s arguments. The Court also emphasizes the importance of giving judicial officers an opportunity to improve.

Ratio of Fact to Law:

The judgment is a mix of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The Court carefully examined the facts of the case, including the timeline of events, the nature of the complaints, and the reasons for the discharge. It then applied the relevant legal principles, particularly Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules. The Court also distinguished several cases relied upon by the respondent, focusing on the specific factual context of the present case. The ratio of fact to law is roughly 60:40, with a greater emphasis on the factual context of the case.

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the discharge order dated 27.01.2016. The Court held that the discharge order was punitive and not a simple termination. The Court also held that the discharge was not in accordance with Rules 45 and 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. The Court ordered the reinstatement of the appellant with all consequential benefits.

Flowchart

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the case can be summarized as follows:

• Punitive Discharge Requires Compliance with Article 311(2): If a probationer’s discharge is based on an inquiry into alleged misconduct, it is considered punitive and requires compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which mandates a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
• Discharge Must Be Based on Unsatisfactory Performance: A probationer can be discharged for unsatisfactory performance, but this must be supported by material evidence and not solely based on an inquiry into alleged misconduct.
• Opportunity to Improve is Essential: Judicial officers should be given guidance and opportunities to improve, and termination should not be based on minor mistakes or a single incident without corrupt motives.
• Arbitrary Actions are Unconstitutional: Arbitrary actions by the employer are unconstitutional and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Non-communication of ACRs and complaints is considered arbitrary.
• Judicial Independence Must Be Protected: Disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against judicial officers for wrong judgments unless there are strong grounds to suspect mala fides, extraneous considerations, or corrupt motives.

Specific Holding of the Court: The Supreme Court held that the discharge of Abhay Jain was punitive and not a simple termination. The Court found that the discharge was based on an inquiry into his conduct, thus requiring compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The Court also found that there was no material to show unsatisfactory performance. The Court set aside the discharge order and ordered the reinstatement of the appellant with all consequential benefits.

Ratio Table

Impact of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for service law, particularly for judicial officers on probation. The key takeaways are:

• Protection for Probationers: The judgment clarifies that probationers are not without protection. If their discharge is based on an inquiry into alleged misconduct, they are entitled to the safeguards under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
• Importance of Due Process: The judgment emphasizes the importance of due process and fair treatment. Employers cannot circumvent the requirements of Article 311(2) by disguising a punitive action as a simple termination.
• Need for Clear Guidelines: The judgment highlights the need for clear guidelines and procedures for evaluating the performance of probationers. The discharge must be based on demonstrable unsatisfactory performance, not just allegations of misconduct.
• Protection of Judicial Independence: The judgment reinforces the principle that judicial officers should not be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for wrong judgments unless there is evidence of mala fides or corrupt motives. This protects judicial independence and ensures that judges can exercise their discretion without fear of reprisal.
• Communication of Complaints: The judgment underscores the importance of communicating complaints and adverse remarks to the concerned employee. Non-communication of complaints is considered arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice.

This case serves as a reminder that probationers are not merely temporary employees but are also entitled to fair treatment and due process. The employer must act fairly and transparently when considering the discharge of a probationer. The judgment is a significant step towards protecting the rights of judicial officers and ensuring the independence of the judiciary.