1. Probationer judicial officer discharged following allegations of simultaneous degree acquisition, pursuing higher studies during prior government service, and non-disclosure of past employment. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 15 , 16 )
Back
Next 
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
Important Points
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.
Subject
Employment Law - Probationary Employment
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16, Art.311, Art.311(2)
RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICES RULES: R.14, R.44, R.45, R.46
RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICES RULES: R.14, R.44, R.45, R.46
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.
(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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
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
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
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends discharge is stigmatic and violates natural justice; Respondent argues misconduct and suppression of material information justify discharge under service rules. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Non-disclosure of past employment after resignation is a minor omission; discharge based on misconduct is stigmatic and requires a fair hearing. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
4. Discharge of a probationer founded on misconduct is punitive and stigmatic, necessitating a proper inquiry and compliance with principles of natural justice. (Para 25 , 27 )
5. Appeal allowed — discharge order quashed — reinstatement with seniority and confirmation granted, excluding back wages. (Para 32 )
6. What is the difference between termination simpliciter and stigmatic termination of a probationer?
Termination simpliciter is based on unsatisfactory performance and requires no inquiry or hearing. Stigmatic termination is based on misconduct or a blemish, acting as a punishment, and therefore requires a proper inquiry and adherence to the principles of natural justice. (Para 25 )
7. Is a probationer entitled to a hearing if the discharge is based on misconduct?
Yes. If a probationer is discharged on grounds of misconduct or inefficiency without a proper enquiry and a reasonable opportunity to show cause, it may amount to removal from service under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. (Para 27 )
8. Does the non-disclosure of past government service after resignation constitute a material irregularity justifying discharge?
Not necessarily. If resignation was submitted prior to the interview, such non-disclosure may be viewed as a minor omission rather than a material irregularity or serious misconduct, especially if the probationer's performance has been satisfactory. (Para 18 , 19 , 23 )
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 her employment in Government job as a Teacher in the checklist submitted at the time of interview of RJS. To this the petitioner has given her explanation to the effect that, there were no columns in Checklist for Interview wherein she was required to say that she was employed in Government service. The petitioner submitted that she had filled her checklist on 02.11.2018, whereas the petitioner submitted her resignation from the government service on 25-10-2018 and had stopped reporting to service.
(d) The petitioner did not obtain any permission or ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Education Department for appearing in the RJS Examination. To this the petitioner has give
