2020 Supreme(SC) 272

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, CJI., B.R. GAVAI, SURYA KANT, JJ.
Rajasthan High Court – Appellants
Versus
Ved Priya & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8933-8934 of 2017
Decided on : 18-03-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Collective wisdom of Full Court deserves due respect, weightage and consideration in process of judicial review.
(2) There is a subtle, yet fundamental, difference between termination of a probationer and that of a confirmed employee.
(3) Form of an order is not crucial to determine whether it is simplicitor or punitive in nature.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 235 – Scope of judicial review – Width and sweep of judicial review by a High Court over decisions taken by its Full Court on administrative side – Although it would be a futile task to exhaustively delineate scope of writ jurisdiction in such matters but High Court under Article 226 has limited scope and it ought to interfere cautiously – Amplitude of such jurisdiction cannot be enlarged to sit as an ‘appellate authority’, and hence care must be taken to not hold another possible interpretation on same set of material or substitute Court’s opinion for that of disciplinary authority – This is especially true given responsibility and powers bestowed upon High Court under Article 235 of Constitution – Collective wisdom of Full Court deserves due respect, weightage and consideration in process of judicial review. (Para 13)

(B) Constitution of India – Article 311 – Termination from service – Form of an order is not crucial to determine whether it is simplicitor or punitive in nature – An order of termination of service though innocuously worded may, in facts and circumstances of a peculiar case, also be aimed at punishing official on probation and in that case it would be an infraction of Article 311 of Constitution – Court in process of judicial review of such order can always lift veil to find out as to whether or not order was meant to visit probationer with penal consequences – If Court finds that real motive behind the order was to `punish’ the official, it may always strike down the same for want of reasonable opportunity of being heard. (Para 21)

(C) Service Law – Discharge of Judicial Officer from service – Allegations of misdemeanour and corruption in discharge of judicial functions – First respondent was a probationer and not a substantive appointee, hence not strictly covered within umbrella of Article 311 – Entire objective of probation is to provide employer an opportunity to evaluate probationer’s performance and test his suitability for a particular post – Such an exercise is a necessary part of process of recruitment and must not be treated lightly – Written tests and interviews are only attempts to predict a candidate’s possibility of success at a particular job – True test of suitability is actual performance of duties which can only be applied after candidate joins and starts working – Although quantitative parameters are ostensibly fair, but they by themselves are imperfect indicators of future performance – Qualitative assessment and a holistic analysis of non-quantifiable factors are indeed necessary – Merely because Respondent No. 1’s ACRs were consistently marked ‘Good’, it cannot be a ground to bestow him with a right to continue in service – There is a subtle, yet fundamental, difference between termination of a probationer and that of a confirmed employee – Probationers have no indefeasible right to continue in employment until confirmed, and they can be relieved by competent authority if found unsuitable – Its only in a very limited category of cases that such probationers can seek protection under principles of natural justice, when they are ‘removed’ in a manner which prejudices their future prospects in alternate fields or casts aspersions on their character or violates their constitutional rights – In such cases of ‘stigmatic’ removal only that a reasonable opportunity of hearing is sine-qua-non – Order is based upon overall assessment of performance of Respondent No.1 during period of probation, which was not found satisfactory – Such an inference which can be a valid foundation to dispense with services of a probationer does not warrant holding of an enquiry in terms of Article 311 of Constitution – Question of exercising equity arises only when Court is conferred jurisdiction expressly or by implication – Judgment of High Court set aside and order of discharge whereby services of Respondent No.1 were dispensed with during probation, approved. (Paras 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23 and 27)

Facts of the Case:

Present civil appeals have been preferred by the Rajasthan High Court against the order dated 16.12.2014 by which a Division Bench of the said High Court dismissed a petition for review of its earlier order dated 09.11.2014 wherein the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by

Respondent No. 1 – a former judicial officer, and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits and seniority.

Findings of the Court:

If the genesis of the order of termination of service lies in a specific act of misconduct, regardless of overall satisfactory performance of duties during probation period, the Court will be well within its reach to unmask the hidden cause and hold that the simplicitor order of termination, in fact, intends to punish the probationer without establishing the charge(s) by way of an enquiry.

Result : Appeals allowed.