Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court has reinstated six trainee judges who were dismissed during their probation period in 2015. The court found that their termination, ostensibly a "discharge simpliciter," was in reality punitive and did not adhere to due process. 

The case pertains to six probationary judicial officers who had cleared the Provincial Civil Services (Judicial) Examination and were appointed as Additional Civil Judges (Junior Division) in 2013. They were undergoing training at the Institute of Judicial Training and Research in Lucknow.

Following an altercation at a social gathering on September 7, 2014, the High Court’s Administrative Committee initiated an inquiry. A report submitted by the Senior Registrar (Judicial) on September 12, 2014, confirmed that a scuffle had taken place and that the officers involved had consumed alcohol. The matter was then placed before the Full Court of the High Court, which, on September 15, 2014, recommended their discharge from service on grounds of failing to meet the required standards.

However, affected officers challenged their termination before the high court, contending that their dismissal was arbitrary and based on a single incident rather than a comprehensive evaluation of their performance.

The petitioners contended that the termination order was a mere pretext to remove them from service without affording them an opportunity to present their defense. They asserted that if allegations of misconduct were the basis for their dismissal, a proper inquiry was mandatory under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

The bench of Justices Jaspreet Singh, Manish Mathur, and Subhash Vidyarthi noted that while probationers do not have a vested right to confirmation, their discharge must be based on a fair assessment of overall suitability, not on allegations that effectively amount to misconduct without an inquiry. The high court also referred to several Supreme Court precedents, including Ved Priya v. Rajasthan High Court and R.C. Chandel v. High Court of M.P., which held that when termination is linked to allegations of misconduct, it cannot be considered a discharge simpliciter. The judges observed that when a termination is based on allegations affecting character, it ceases to be a simple discharge and instead becomes punitive.

Importantly, the court emphasized the unique responsibility of judicial officers, stating that their role is not merely that of a government servant but one of public trust. While high standards of integrity are expected, any removal must follow due process. The judgment reaffirmed that even probationers are entitled to procedural fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The bench found that the Full Court's decision to terminate the officers was based primarily on the 2014 incident rather than a thorough review of their overall performance during probation.

Consequently, court issued a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders of discharge of the officers from service. Court also issued a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding reinstatement of the trainee officers forthwith as Probationary Judicial Officers on the post held by them prior to the passing of the impugned order of discharge. 

"Their continuance or otherwise in service shall be subject to their confirmation in service," court clarified. 

 Case Title: Sudhir Mishra Vs.  State Of U.P. and connected matters