Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Probationary Judge: Rajasthan High Court vs. Ved Priya (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 March 2020

Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 8933-8934 of 2017

Judges: S. A. Bobde (Chief Justice of India), B. R. Gavai J., Surya Kant J.

Can a High Court terminate the services of a probationary judicial officer based on overall performance, or does it require specific charges and a hearing? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the termination of a probationary judicial officer by the Rajasthan High Court. The core issue was whether the High Court’s decision to terminate the officer’s services was punitive in nature, thus requiring a formal inquiry, or was a valid assessment of the officer’s suitability for the job. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice S. A. Bobde, Justice B. R. Gavai, and Justice Surya Kant.

Case Background

Ved Priya (Respondent No. 1) was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate in the Rajasthan Judicial Services on July 16, 2002. He was placed on probation for two years starting August 2, 2002, which was later extended by two months on July 28, 2004. During his probation, allegations of misconduct and corruption in his judicial functions were raised against him and other judicial officers. The Registrar (Vigilance) of the Rajasthan High Court submitted a report on August 5, 2004, regarding these allegations.

The Administrative Committee of the High Court, while reviewing the confirmation of 93 probationary judges, considered this report along with other materials, including reports from District Judges and Inspecting Judges. The Committee recommended confirming 90 officers, extending one officer’s probation, and not confirming two officers, including Respondent No. 1. The Full Court of the High Court confirmed these recommendations on September 16, 2004. Consequently, on the High Court’s recommendation, the State Government terminated Respondent No. 1’s services on September 30, 2004.

Aggrieved by this termination, Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, arguing that the termination was punitive and based on subjective notions without proper inquiry or hearing.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, while hearing the writ petition of Respondent No. 1, noted that although a probationer could be terminated without specific reasons, such a decision was subject to limited judicial review. The High Court evaluated the reasons behind the termination and found that there was no sufficient material to justify dispensing with Respondent No. 1’s services. The High Court also noted that the Full Court relied on unsubstantiated allegations without giving Respondent No. 1 a hearing, which made the action punitive. Thus, the High Court quashed the termination order and directed reinstatement of Respondent No. 1.

The Rajasthan High Court filed a review petition, arguing that the Division Bench had not considered the special report submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance), which highlighted that Respondent No. 1 had granted bail in two NDPS Act cases without competence. The High Court dismissed this review petition, noting that the report had been kept in mind while allowing the writ petition.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, which provides safeguards to civil servants against arbitrary dismissal or removal. However, these protections are not automatically extended to probationers. The Court also considered the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955, which govern the service conditions of judicial officers in Rajasthan. The Court examined the concept of probation and the employer’s right to assess the suitability of a probationer for confirmation.

The Supreme Court also discussed the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers High Courts to issue writs. The Court noted that while the High Court can review administrative decisions, it cannot act as an appellate authority and must exercise caution in interfering with decisions taken by the Full Court of the High Court on its administrative side.

The relevant legal provision, Section 36(3) of the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), was also considered, which specifies that only a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge can grant bail in NDPS cases.

Arguments

Arguments by the Rajasthan High Court (Appellant):

• The termination order was not punitive, arbitrary, or passed without sufficient material.
• The report by the Registrar (Vigilance), along with other materials, justified the opinion that Respondent No. 1 was unsuitable.
• The High Court’s Division Bench erred by entering into the merits of the case and acting as an appellate authority, exceeding the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• The adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction.
• The services of temporary employees and probationers can be terminated without attracting Article 311 of the Constitution.
• There was no allegation or proof of mala fide. The only issue to be considered was whether there was due application of mind before taking the administrative decision.

Arguments by Ved Priya (Respondent No. 1):

• An opportunity of hearing is a fundamental protection, and no one can be condemned unheard, regardless of their employment status.
• Relying on Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab [(1974) 2 SCC 831], it was argued that if a probationer is discharged based on specific allegations or inefficiency without proper inquiry and hearing, it amounts to removal from service under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
• The termination, though ostensibly simplicitor, was stigmatic.
• The circumstances made it clear that allegations of corruption or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction were the foundation of the action, violating the principles of natural justice as per State Bank of India v. Palak Modi [(2013) 3 SCC 607].
• Even on merits, the allegations were without substance.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the termination order of Respondent No. 1 was punitive or a simple termination of service of a probationer.
2. Whether the High Court’s Division Bench exceeded its scope of judicial review in interfering with the administrative decision of the Full Court.
3. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the termination of Respondent No. 1’s services.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the scope of judicial review and the nature of probation:

• High Court of Patna v. Pandey Gajendra Prasad [(2012) 6 SCC 357] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that a judicial officer’s termination could not be altered through writ jurisdiction merely because his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) had good remarks.
• Kazia Mohammed Muzzammil v. State of Karnataka [(2010) 8 SCC 155] – Supreme Court of India: This case explained that the purpose of probation is to judge the ability, suitability, and performance of an officer before confirmation.
• Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand [(2011) 4 SCC 447] – Supreme Court of India: This case stated that a person is placed on probation to enable the employer to adjudge his suitability for continuation in service.

On the distinction between termination of a probationer and a confirmed employee:

• Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India [AIR 1958 SC 36] – Supreme Court of India: This Constitution Bench case explained that if termination is based on the right flowing from contract or service rules, it is not a punishment. However, if the termination is founded on misconduct, negligence, or inefficiency, it is a punishment and requires compliance with Article 311.

On the principles of natural justice and stigmatic removal:

• Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab [(1974) 2 SCC 831] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that if a probationer is discharged based on specific allegations or inefficiency without proper inquiry, it amounts to removal from service under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
• State Bank of India v. Palak Modi [(2013) 3 SCC 607] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that even if no explicit reasons are given for termination, preceding circumstances can show that the termination was based on specific allegations, violating natural justice.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the case and came to the conclusion that the High Court’s decision to terminate the services of the probationary judge was valid.

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed High Court of Patna v. Pandey Gajendra Prasad [(2012) 6 SCC 357]* to emphasize that good ACRs alone do not guarantee continuation of service.
• The Court followed Kazia Mohammed Muzzammil v. State of Karnataka [(2010) 8 SCC 155]* and Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand [(2011) 4 SCC 447]* to explain the purpose and nature of probation and the employer’s right to assess the suitability of a probationer.
• The Court followed Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India [AIR 1958 SC 36]* to distinguish between a simple termination and a punitive termination.
• The Court distinguished Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab [(1974) 2 SCC 831]* and State Bank of India v. Palak Modi [(2013) 3 SCC 607]* to clarify that the present case did not involve stigmatic removal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The nature of probation, which allows the employer to assess the suitability of a probationer.
• The limited scope of judicial review in administrative decisions, especially those made by the Full Court of a High Court.
• The distinction between a simple termination and a punitive termination, with the latter requiring a formal inquiry and hearing.
• The fact that the termination order was based on the overall assessment of the probationer’s performance and not on specific allegations of misconduct.
• The probationer’s actions of granting bail in NDPS cases without jurisdiction, indicating a tendency to act negligently or usurp power.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Ratio of Fact:Law

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning

The following flowchart demonstrates the court’s logical reasoning for the main issue:

Key Takeaways

• Probationers do not have an indefeasible right to continue in employment until confirmed.
• The termination of a probationer’s services can be based on an overall assessment of their performance and suitability.
• The High Court’s power of judicial review over its administrative decisions is limited, and it cannot act as an appellate authority.
• Principles of natural justice are not automatically applicable to the termination of a probationer’s services unless the termination is punitive or stigmatic.
• Probationary judicial officers are expected to adhere to the highest standards of probity and competence.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and approved the order of discharge dated 30.09.2004, whereby the services of Respondent No. 1 were dispensed with during probation.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the termination of a probationer’s services is valid if it is based on an overall assessment of their performance and suitability, and not on specific allegations of misconduct. The Supreme Court clarified that the principles of natural justice are not automatically applicable to such terminations unless they are punitive or stigmatic. This case reinforces the limited scope of judicial review in administrative decisions and the importance of upholding the employer’s right to assess the suitability of a probationer. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Rajasthan High Court, setting aside the High Court’s judgment that had ordered the reinstatement of the probationary judicial officer. The Supreme Court upheld the termination of the officer’s services, emphasizing that the termination was a valid assessment of his suitability and not a punitive action requiring a formal inquiry. This judgment reinforces the importance of probation as a tool for evaluating an employee’s performance and suitability, and it clarifies the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.