Supreme Court Reinstates Terminated Women Judicial Officers, Emphasizes Fair Probation Assessment: Sarita Choudhary vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (28 February 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2025
Judges: B. V. Nagarathna, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
The Supreme Court of India addressed the termination of two women judicial officers during their probation period, examining whether the High Court’s actions were punitive or arbitrary. The Court considered the importance of fair probation assessments and the need for a sensitive work environment for women in the judiciary. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the termination orders, emphasizing the need for holistic decision-making that accounts for individual circumstances and ensures equal opportunity.

Case Background

On May 23, 2023, six women Judicial Officers in Madhya Pradesh were terminated based on recommendations from the Administrative Committee of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The committee had met earlier that month to shortlist officers for confirmation of their judicial service probation. The High Court confirmed a list of 403 Judicial Officers on May 13, 2023, while also recommending the termination of the six women judicial officers. The termination orders were subsequently issued on May 23, 2023.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Three women Judicial Officers of the District Judiciary of the State of Madhya Pradesh made a representation to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India alleging their termination from service as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994. Upon considering the said representation, Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, by an administrative Order dated 11.11.2023, directed that the matter be registered by way of a suo moto writ petition in respect of all six women judicial officers who were terminated from service.

On 23.07.2024, this Court had requested the Full Court of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to reconsider the termination of the six women judicial officers. Pursuant to our order dated 23.07.2024, the Full Court of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh re-considered its earlier resolutions and orders impugned in the suo motu writ petition as well as the other writ petitions, and consequently, in its 530th Full Court Meeting held on 01.08.2024, four officers were considered for reinstatement. However, there was no quietus to the controversy qua two other officers namely, Sushri Sarita Choudhary and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma as the Full Court of the High Court did not deem it proper to reinstate them.

Legal Framework

The case hinges on Rule 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, which governs probation. Key aspects of the rule include:

• Rule 11(a): A person appointed to category (i) of rule 3(1) shall, from the date on which he joins duty, be on probation for a period of two years.
• Rule 11(b): The High Court may, at any time, extend the probation, but the total period of probation shall not exceed three years.
• Rule 11(c): It shall be competent for High Court at any time during or at the end of the period of probation in the case of Civil Judge (Entry Level) to recommend termination of his service and in the case of Senior Civil Judge, to revert him on account of unsuitability for the post.
• Rule 11(d): On successful completion of probation, the probationer shall, of there is permanent post available be confirmed on the service or post to which he has been appointed and if no permanent post is available, a certificate shall be issued by the High court to the effect that he would have been confirmed, but for the non -availability of the permanent post and as soon as permanent post become available, he will be confirmed, if the High court decides that he has successfully completed the period of probation and he is suitable to hold the post.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner – Sarita Choudhary

• Low Unit Value Explanation: The low unit value for 2022 was due to fewer civil cases, transfer of criminal matters, and non-allotment of a police station.
• Pending Representation: The petitioner’s representation against the 2020 ACR was pending at the time of termination, violating natural justice principles.
• Violation of Natural Justice: The ACR for 2021 was communicated after her termination.
• Complaint Subject Matter: The complaints against her involved not monitoring execution clerks and a WhatsApp post, neither warranting termination.

Arguments on behalf of Petitioner – Aditi Kumar Sharma

• Discrimination: Other judicial officers were reinstated, but she was not.
• Holistic ACR Review: A holistic review of her ACRs would show her suitability for confirmation.
• No Minimum Criteria: There are no minimum unit criteria for confirmation.
• Incorrect Data: There was incorrect data presentation of disposal units in the Assessment Chart.
• Covid-19 Impact: The Covid-19 pandemic and personal difficulties impacted her performance.
• Violation of Natural Justice: She was not given an opportunity to explain adverse remarks.
• Unfinalized ACR: The Administrative Committee considered an unfinalized ACR for 2022.
• Complaints: She was found not guilty in three complaints, and the inquiries violated natural justice.
• Termination Nature: The termination was punitive, not simpliciter, violating Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent – High Court

• No Automatic Confirmation: Probationers cannot be automatically confirmed without a specific order.
• No Notice Required: Probationers can be discharged without notice or a hearing.
• Overall Record: The overall record, including confidential reports, must be considered.
• High Court Control: Judicial service falls under the High Court’s control, and its opinion must be respected.
• No Exclusive Link: There was no exclusive link between complaints and termination.
• No Right to Continue: Probationers have no indefeasible right to continue in employment.
• Limited Court Role: The Court does not sit in appeal over the Full Court’s decision.
• No Obligation: There is no obligation to communicate adverse material before a decision.

Submissions Categorized by Main Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the respondent -High Court was right in terminating the services of the petitioners? In other words, whether the cessation of services of the petitioners in the instant cases is punitive, arbitrary and therefore contrary to law?
2. If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative, then what order?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court relied on Anoop Jaiswal vs. Government of India, (1984) 2 SCC 369, to emphasize the court’s power to ascertain the true character of a termination order.
• The court referred to Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basis Sciences, Calcutta, (1999) 3 SCC 60, to determine the circumstances under which a probationer’s termination can be considered founded on misconduct.
• The court cited Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139, to highlight the importance of granting relief based on the principles established in Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36.
• The court invoked Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat vs. Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti, (2013) 16 SCC 59, to underscore the need to provide minimum protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, even to probationers.
• The court cited Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192, to emphasize that if a probationer was discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency without a proper inquiry it might amount to inflicting the punishment of removal from services within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
• The court cited Jaswant singh Pratap singh Jadeja vs. Rajkot Municipal Corporation, (2007) 10 SCC 71, to emphasize that where there is a discharge from service after prescribed probation period was completed and the discharge order contain allegations against a probationer and surrounding circumstances also showed that discharge was not based solely on the assessment of the employee’s work and conduct during probation, the termination was held to be stigmatic and punitive.
• The court cited Khem Chand vs. Union of India, 1958 SCR 1080, to emphasize that Article 311(2) of the Constitution, is applicable in case of stigmatic termination.
• The court cited Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences, (2002) 1 SCC 520, to emphasize that termination is punitive and not termination simpliciter as it was founded on complaints of misconduct and the finding of guilt in reports of full-scale inquiries.
• The court cited Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P, (2000) 5 SCC 152, to emphasize that Prior to termination, the Petitioner should have been given an opportunity to be heard.
• The court cited Amar Singh vs. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 69, to emphasize that Practice of not supported by affidavits, instead a piece of paper with the signatures of some advocates was annexed with the report is unsustainable in law.
• The court cited Dr. Vijayakumaran CPV vs. Central University of Kerala & Ors, (2020) 12 SCC 426, to emphasize that For an order of termination to be stigmatic the words casting stigma may also be contained in an order or proceeding referred to in such an order or in an annexure thereto.
• The court cited State of Bihar vs. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra, (1970) 2 SCC 871, to emphasize that Order may be stigmatic if perusal of the record discloses that other material was taken into consideration while proposing the action of termination.
• The court cited Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 146, to emphasize that Downgrade from a grading of “very good” in the previous year to “good” in the subsequent year is considered an “adverse remark” and must have been required to be communicated to the petitioner.
• The court cited Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited vs. Tarun Kanti Sengupta, (1986) 3 SCC 156, to emphasize that Discretion cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner, upon the subjective satisfaction of the High Court and in violation of principles of natural justice.
• The court cited Ishwar Chand Jain vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (1988) 3 SCC 370, to emphasize that If even after warning and guidance a probationer fails to improve, then the High Court can terminate their services; however, this power must not be exercised arbitrarily.
• The court cited High Court of Madhya Pradesh vs. Satya Narayan Jhavar, (2001) 7 SCC 161, to emphasize that Even if the maximum period of probation has lapsed (two years), a probationer cannot be automatically confirmed without a specific order being passed by the High Court.
• The court cited Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Secondary School vs. JAJ Vasu Sena, (2019) 17 SCC 157, to emphasize that Even if the maximum period of probation has lapsed (two years), a probationer cannot be automatically confirmed without a specific order being passed by the High Court.
• The court cited Rajasthan High Court vs. Ved Priya, (2021) 13 SCC 151, to emphasize that A probationer can be discharged without any notice or opportunity of hearing or without conducting any inquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
• The court cited High Court of Judicature at Patna vs. Pandey Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha, (1997) 10 SCC 409, to emphasize that A probationer can be discharged without any notice or opportunity of hearing or without conducting any inquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
• The court cited Satya Narayan Athya vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 560, to emphasize that A probationer can be discharged without any notice or opportunity of hearing or without conducting any inquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
• The court cited Rajesh Kohli vs. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, (2010) 12 SCC 783, to emphasize that The service rules do not contemplate any prior notice or opportunity of hearing before discharge or termination of a probationer.
• The court cited Registrar, High Court of Gujarat vs. CG Sharma, (2005) 1 SCC 132, to emphasize that Unless there is a direct nexus between the charges levelled and actiontaken, a mere preliminary inquiry or examination of the complaints against the probationer for assessment for his overall performance would not vitiate an order of termination so as to make it punitive.
• The court cited Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 4 SCC 447, to emphasize that Unless there is a direct nexus between the charges levelled and action taken, a mere preliminary inquiry or examination of the complaints against the probationer for assessment for his overall performance would not vitiate an order of termination so as to make it punitive.
• The court cited Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore vs. Dr. Pandurang Godwalkar, (1992) 4 SCC 719, to emphasize that Unless there is a direct nexus between the charges levelled and action taken, a mere preliminary inquiry or examination of the complaints against the probationer for assessment for his overall performance would not vitiate an order of termination so as to make it punitive.
• The court cited Arundhati Ashok Walavalkar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 11 SCC 324, to emphasize that The conduct of judicial officers while discharging their responsibilities must be impeccable and judges must act as role models for the entire judicial system.
• The court cited Ram Murti Yadav vs. State of U.P., (2020) 1 SCC 801, to emphasize that The conduct of judicial officers while discharging their responsibilities must be impeccable and judges must act as role models for the entire judicial system.
• The court cited Kazia Mohammed Muzzammil vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 155, to emphasize that The objective of probation is to provide the employer an opportunity to evaluate the probationer’s performance and suitability.
• The court cited Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya, (2020) 7 SCC 469, to emphasize that Castigated the State’s perpetuation of anachronistic gender roles based on sex stereotypes which have long discriminated against women.
• The court cited Nitisha v. Indian Army, (2021) 15 SCC 125, to emphasize that Significantly advanced Indian jurisprudence on indirect discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court emphasized that the termination of a probationer’s service should not be punitive or arbitrary. It must be based on a fair and objective assessment of the probationer’s performance and suitability for the job. The court also highlighted the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and ensuring that probationers are given an opportunity to explain any adverse remarks or complaints against them. The court reiterated that the conduct of judicial officers must be impeccable and that they must act as role models for the entire judicial system.

Final Order

The Supreme Court set aside the termination orders of Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma. The court directed the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to reinstate them into service with all consequential benefits, including seniority and pay. The court also directed the High Court to conduct a fresh assessment of their performance and suitability for the job, taking into account the principles laid down in the judgment.

Dissenting Opinion (if any)

There was no dissenting opinion in this case.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is significant for several reasons:

• Protection of Probationers: It reinforces the protection afforded to probationers against arbitrary and punitive termination.
• Fair Assessment: It emphasizes the need for a fair and objective assessment of probationers’ performance, taking into account their individual circumstances and the challenges they may face.
• Natural Justice: It reiterates the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and ensuring that probationers are given an opportunity to explain any adverse remarks or complaints against them.
• Gender Sensitivity: It underscores the need for a gender-sensitive approach to the assessment of women judicial officers, recognizing the unique challenges they may face in the workplace.
• Judicial Independence: It upholds the independence of the judiciary by ensuring that judicial officers are not subjected to arbitrary or unfair treatment.

Related News

• Supreme Court Reinstates Terminated Women Judicial Officers – Live Law
• SC Quashes Termination Orders of Two Women Judicial Officers in MP – Bar and Bench

Disclaimer

This is a summary and analysis of the Supreme Court judgment in Sarita Choudhary vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, it should not be considered a substitute for legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for any specific legal questions or concerns.