Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal challenging the discharge of a probationary Civil Judge by the Rajasthan High Court. It quashed the show cause notice dated 17.02.2020 and the discharge order dated 29.05.2020, holding both to be unjust, stigmatic, and violative of natural justice. The Court directed reinstatement of the appellant with all consequential benefits — including fixation of seniority and notional pay — but excluding back wages, and ordered that she be treated as having successfully completed her probation and be confirmed in service.
“The appellant has been awarded capital punishment for a minor irregularity (omission).”
Facts
- The appellant, a member of the Scheduled Tribe category, held B.A., B.Ed., LL.B., and LL.M. degrees.
- She joined the Rajasthan Education Department as a Grade-II Teacher on 30.12.2014.
- On 18.11.2017, the Rajasthan High Court issued an advertisement for recruitment to the Civil Judge Cadre.
- She applied, qualified through preliminary and main examinations, and was interviewed on 02.11.2018.
- She had resigned from her teaching post on 25.10.2018, and her resignation was accepted on 28.12.2018.
- She was appointed as a Civil Judge on probation on 11.02.2019 and completed her training on 07.03.2020.
However, complaints were made alleging that:
- She simultaneously pursued B.Ed and LL.B, which was impermissible.
- She pursued LL.M. as a regular student while in service.
- She did not obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Education Department to sit for RJS.
- She did not disclose prior government employment in the checklist submitted at the time of interview.
- She joined judicial service without informing the Education Department of her selection.
Following a fact-finding inquiry by the Registrar (Vigilance), the Full Court resolved to discharge her from service, which was challenged and dismissed by the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the appellant’s omission to disclose prior government service in the checklist constituted a material suppression warranting discharge.
- Whether procedural irregularities in the inquiry process rendered the discharge order invalid.
- Whether the discharge was stigmatic and punitive, in violation of Articles 14, 16, and 311(2) of the Constitution.
- Whether the High Court was justified in invoking the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 to terminate a probationer based on past alleged irregularities.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The alleged misconduct occurred before she entered judicial service; no disciplinary action had been taken by the Education Department.
- She had resigned before her interview, and hence there was no obligation to disclose past service.
- The inquiry was conducted ex parte; no presenting officer was appointed, and the inquiry report was never furnished to her.
- She was not provided a real opportunity of being heard; this violated principles of natural justice.
- The omission was not suppression of any criminal antecedents or conduct of moral turpitude.
- She successfully completed her probation/training without any blemish and was unfairly removed.
- Her discharge order was stigmatic and thus could not be a simple termination.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Pursuing B.Ed and LL.B simultaneously violated Ordinances 168-A and 168-B of Rajasthan University.
- LL.M. was pursued as a regular course while in government service without prior permission.
- She did not obtain NOC for appearing in the RJS examination and did not disclose past government service in her application.
- The Full Court found her unfit for confirmation and decided to discharge her under Rule 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.
- Rule 14 also allows disqualification for suppression of material facts or irregular entry.
- As a probationer, she had no right to continue, and her discharge was not stigmatic.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, especially:
- Rule 44 – All direct recruits are placed on probation for two years.
- Rule 45 – Confirmation is based on the Full Court’s satisfaction that the candidate is fit.
- Rule 46 – Allows discharge for unsatisfactory probation; also permits extension of probation.
- Rule 14 – Disqualifies a candidate for irregular or improper means, such as false statements or suppression.
The Court noted:
- The discharge was not based on unsatisfactory performance, as the appellant completed training “with flying colours”.
- The omission to disclose past government employment (after resignation) was not material.
- The appellant provided a reasonable explanation — she was no longer in service on the date of the checklist submission.
- The show cause notice and subsequent inquiry did not follow principles of natural justice — no copy of the report was given, no opportunity to rebut findings.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied extensively on:
1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831
- Held that even probationers are protected under Article 311(2) if termination is based on misconduct.
- Where termination is punitive and stigmatic, a proper inquiry and opportunity of hearing are necessary.
“If a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct… without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity… it may amount to removal from service.”
2. Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation (2007) 10 SCC 71
- Discharge order containing allegations, even without use of stigmatic language, amounts to punitive termination if the surrounding facts indicate the same.
“The substance of the matter and not the form must guide whether the termination was punitive.”
3. Raj Kumar v. Union of India (1968) 3 SCR 857
- A probationer can be terminated if found unsuitable, but not for misconduct unless proper procedure is followed.
Other precedents cited by respondents (e.g., Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya; H.F. Sangati; Rajesh Kohli; Rajasthan HC v. Akashdeep Morya) were distinguished on facts.
Court’s Reasoning
- The appellant’s conduct during judicial probation was without blemish.
- The allegations pertained to earlier employment and were not grave — no criminal charges or fraudulent conduct proven.
- She was denied procedural safeguards — there was an inquiry, but no presenting officer, and the report was never served to her.
- The omission to disclose her past service was not intentional or fraudulent.
- The action of discharging her without a fair hearing was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16.
- The Court noted that greater gender diversity in the judiciary enhances institutional quality and social trust.
Conclusion
- The impugned show cause notice dated 17.02.2020 and discharge order dated 29.05.2020 were quashed.
- The appellant was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits, including:
- Notional pay fixation,
- Fixation of seniority based on the merit list,
- Confirmation as a regular judicial officer.
- However, no back wages were awarded.
Implications
- Affirms that probationers are entitled to protection against stigmatic or punitive terminations without due process.
- Sets a precedent that procedural lapses in inquiry can vitiate disciplinary actions, even for probationers.
- Clarifies that omission to disclose past government service, when not intentional or material, is not misconduct.
- Encourages fair treatment and representation of women and marginalised communities in judicial services.
- Strengthens the interpretation of Article 311(2) in the context of probationary discharge orders.