SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 895

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Pinky Meena – Appellant
Versus
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7091 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 23529 of 2023]
Decided On : 22-05-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mayank Jain, Adv. Mr. Parmatma Singh, AOR Mr. Madhur Jain, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Arpit Goel, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Ms. Anupriya Srivastava, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR

The court ruled that the discharge of a probationer based on procedural shortcomings and lack of fair inquiry violates natural justice under Article 311 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 - Rules 14, 44, 45, and 46 - Termination of probationary employment - Show cause notice issued for alleged misconduct in obtaining degrees - High Court's discharge not justified; appellant's resignation from former position excused non-disclosure during application process - No evidence of unsatisfactory performance during probation - Discharge declared stigmatic due to improper inquiry process. (Paras 24, 31)

(B) Legal Principles - Fair hearing and natural justice must be accorded in disciplinary matters; discharge based on misconduct without proper inquiry actionable under Article 311 of Constitution - Appointment procedures and requirements ensure fair treatment of candidates without discrimination. (Paras 27, 28)

(C)

Issues: Primary issues included the validity of discharge based on alleged past misconduct and the appropriateness of procedures followed by the inquiry. (Paras 6, 20)

Findings of Court:
The appellant's termination was executed improperly, lacking in adherence to procedural fairness and just cause, and thus rendered the discharge actionable and reversible. (Paras 31, 32)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that without proper inquiry and consideration of performance during probation, termination of the appellant from service constitutes a violation of natural justice and is therefore unjustifiable. (Paras 24, 27)

Result: Appeal allowed; discharge order quashed and reinstatement ordered.

Table of Content
1. background on appellant's qualifications and appointment. (Para 2 , 3 , 15)
2. allegations against the appellant regarding academic misconduct. (Para 4 , 5)
3. appellant's defense against misconduct allegations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. respondents' claims supporting discharge of appellant. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. court's analysis regarding misconduct and appeal merits. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 23)
6. discussion on stigma in probationary discharge. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
7. importance of women's participation in judiciary. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
8. court's decision to set aside previous orders. (Para 31)
9. court's ordered reinstatement of the appellant. (Para 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT :

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is arising out of order dated 24.08.2023 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6752 of 2020 by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant. The High Court by way of the aforesaid order has declined relief to the appellant against show cause notice dated 17.02.2020 and the discharge order dated 29.05.2020.

3. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant before this Court is holding a degree in Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Education, Bachelor of Laws and Masters in Law, and was serving as Teacher Grade–II in the Education Department, Government of Rajasthan with effect from 30.12.2014. The facts further reveal that an advertisement was issued by the High Court inviting applications for the post of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate on 18.11.2017. Pursuant to her application for the post of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, she was selected for the post in question. The appointment order was issued on 11.02.2019 and the appellant joined as a trainee RJS on 06.03.2019, and completed her training successfully on 07.03.2020. Vide order dated 06.03.2020, the appellant was kept under Awaiting Posting Order (“APO”) and later her headquarter was changed vide order dated 23.03.2020 from Jodhpur to District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metro. A notice was issued to her on 17.02.2020 directing her to furnish a point-wise explanation to certain queries raised by the High Court and a reply was submitted by her on 02.03.2020. The show cause notice was issued under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and an Inquiry Report was also submitted in the matter. The Inquiry Report was placed before the Full Court of the High Court, and the Full Court arrived at a conclusion not to continue the appellant in service as she was a probationer and no certificate in respect of completion of probation period was issued by the High Court. The appellant being aggrieved by the order discharging her from service dated 29.05.2020 preferred a writ petition before the High Court and the High Court has dismissed the same.

4. The show cause notice issued by the respondent sought explanation from the appellant on five counts which are detailed as under:

    “(a) While studying in LL.B. first year, the petitioner also obtained degree of B.Ed. in the same year, thus fraudulently succeeding in showing attendance in both the courses. The contention of the petitioner is that she did not obtain the degree of LL.B and B.Ed. in the same year. As per the Ordinance No. 168A of the Ordinance Handbook of Rajasthan University, a candidate cannot appear in two main examinations in the same year. As per the petitioner, LL.B First Year Examination is not main examination for obtaining the degree of LL.B.

    (b) The petitioner while being in Government job as a Teacher did her LL.M. and again fraudulently succeeded in showing attendance in both the courses. The petitioner has given the explanation that she did not show her attendance fraudulently at two places simultaneously because generally no regular classes are held for LL.M. in the University.

    (c) The petitioner concealed the fact of

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top