Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the termination of services of a judicial officer who was on probation and was found unsuitable for the post, and was also additionally accused of verbally abusing and assaulting court staff including women as well as making bar members do sit-ups for apology. The judicial officer–Civil Judge, Junior Division in M.P. Judicial Services had approached the court against a September 2024 discharge order passed by the State Government, based upon the recommendations of the High Court's Administrative Committee which was also ratified by the Full Court on August 20, 2024 whereby he wasdischarged from services. The judicial officer claimed that the discharge was punitive.
A division bench of former Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain in its order pronounced on May 7 said: "The allegations against the petitioner in the material obtained by him under RTI Act were in the matter of instituting Contempt of Court proceedings against Bar members, taking their apologies, having them touch their ears and do sit-ups for apology, same treatment being given to Police personnel appearing in his Court, etc. There were complaints in the matter of misbehavior with the Court staff including female staff of the Court, verbal abuses, threatening with physical assault, running after them for assaulting, leaving headquarter without permission. For these conducts, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bar Association and the Superintendent of Police, reported the matter against the petitioner including one matter wherein he sentenced his own Court peon to two months simple imprisonment for misconduct and fine to the tune of Rs.50/-. It is also true that a discrete enquiry was conducted by a Senior Judicial Officer of the District who found some substance in the complaints and recommended to take the matter further. However, it is not in dispute that the matter was not taken further and no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner nor any punitive action was taken against the petitioner".
The court further said that there has to be some material before the competent authority on which it would reach to such a conclusion that whether his performance and conduct during the probation period has been such so as to confirm the employee's service or to discharge him. It said that if the competent authority has some material before it on which it reaches to a conclusion that the officer concerned would not shape into suitable officer, then it cannot be said that a punitive action has been taken against the said officer.
"The action to discharge the officers simply is not an action which is founded on misconduct or motivated on misconduct. Taking a punitive action for misconduct is one thing and arriving at a satisfaction that whether the officer would shape into a suitable officer or not, on the basis of performance during probation period is altogether different thing. There is a whole lot of difference between the two and in the present case, it is duly established from the aforesaid orders and resolutions that the petitioner has not at all been punished nor the discharge order, from any angle, is punitive in nature," it added.
The court thus said that the discharge was not punitive because neither the Administrative Committee nor the Full Court had resolved to punish the petitioner in any manner. The bench examined the ACR of the judicial officer from 2021 where he had scored grade C. The bench noted that for the year 2023, in his ACR, the District Judge Inspection had awarded grade “C” which was upgraded by the Portfolio Judge to grade “B”. However, the Principal District Judge made the following remarks in the column of overall view which said: "11. Overall View: Though he has disposed of 96 out of 100 listed cases, under debt scheme and has also earned average of 8.04 units per day, which falls in very good category, the quality of judgment/orders passed by him is below expectation. The judgments/orders are written in very slip short manner lacking discussion of evidence and marshalling. (copy of inspection note enclosed)".
The bench thus said that it cannot be said that apart from the complaints which the petitioner is stressed to have been used against him, his performance was good and he deserves to be confirmed from probation. The bench said that it appeared that that the Administrative Committee and the Full Court have properly and meaningfully considered the case of the petitioner and have reached to a proper and just conclusion. "In view of the above and in view of the Rule 11(c) of Rules of 1994 that specifically vest power in the High Court to recommend termination of services of judicial officer on probation on account of unsuitability for the post, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Therefore, the petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be and stands dismissed," the bench said. The petitioner claimed that a preliminary enquiry was ordered by the concerned Principal District Judge and a district judge was asked to conduct discrete enquiry and the report of discrete enquiry has been obtained by petitioner under RTI Act, in which the instances of misbehavior with staff, verbal abuses to staff, etc. were enquired including such behavior to female staff. It was argued that the Enquiry Officer conducting discrete enquiry, who is a District Judge has opined that prima facie complaints are substantiated against the petitioner. He contended that in fact he has been punished in the name of discharge. The respondents contended that the discharge order, and the resolution of the Administrative Committee as well as the Full Court do not allege any misconduct against the petitioner and a simpliciter decision has been taken to discharge him. It was argued only because the petitioner has later on obtained some material which was before the Administrative Committee and Full Court does not mean that the petitioner has been punished for such conducts or such instances which were before the Administrative Committee and the Full Court before it took a decision to discharge him as a probationer and not confirm him in service. It was argued that even the discharge order does not mention any instance of misconduct and simply mentions that the competent authority i.e. Administrative Committee and Full Court have reached the conclusion that the petitioner has been unable to carry out the probation period satisfactorily and successfully and this is the all reason which has been communicated in the impugned order.
Case title: KAUSTUBH KHERA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS (2025 MP HC)
