SC upholds discharge of probationary judge; non-confirmation isn’t punitive absent proven misconduct

Case name: Rajasthan High Court v. Ved Priya & Anr.

Date of Order: 18 March 2020.

Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 8933–8934 of 2017.

Bench: S.A. Bobde, CJI; B.R. Gavai, J.; Surya Kant, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that a probationary judicial officer has no indefeasible right to continue in service and may be discharged on an overall assessment of suitability; such non-confirmation is not “punitive” attracting Article 311 unless the action is founded on specific allegations of misconduct. Courts, in judicial review, must not sit in appeal over the Full Court’s administrative evaluation under Article 235; the presence of vigilance inputs used as part of a holistic suitability review does not, by itself, convert an order of discharge simpliciter into a stigmatic penalty.

Summary: Ved Priya, appointed to the Rajasthan Judicial Service in 2002 and on probation, was not confirmed after the High Court’s Administrative Committee and then the Full Court undertook a confirmation exercise for over ninety probationers, considering ACRs, inspecting judges’ reports and a vigilance note that, inter alia, flagged his grant of bail in NDPS matters beyond his jurisdiction. The State issued an order on 30.09.2004 dispensing with his services, recording only that he had not made sufficient use of opportunities and failed to give satisfaction as a probationer. A Division Bench later quashed the order as punitive and arbitrary and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits, but a review was dismissed. Allowing the High Court’s appeals, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled distinction between discharge of a probationer and removal of a confirmed employee; probation is to test suitability, qualitative assessments are permissible, and good ACRs do not create a right to confirmation. Lifting the veil is warranted only where the foundation is a specific imputed misconduct; here the material showed a routine confirmation exercise with a holistic appraisal, not a covert punishment. Even if complaints existed, the employer could still decide unsuitability at the end of probation without holding a disciplinary inquiry, so long as the decision was not founded on proved charges. The writ court erred in re-appreciating material as if in appeal and in substituting its view for the Full Court’s collective administrative judgment.

Decision: Appeals allowed; the High Court’s judgment is set aside and the discharge during probation approved, with no order as to costs.