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
| 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:
(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
Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. vs. Anil Kanwariya
Hari Singh Mann vs. State of Punjab
State of Punjab and Another vs. Sukh Raj Bahadur
H.F. Sangati vs. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka
Rajesh Kohli vs. High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Others
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur vs. Akashdeep Morya and Another
Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja vs. Rajkot Municipal Corporation
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.
Discharge of a probationary judicial officer based on misconduct allegations without a proper inquiry violates constitutional protections, constituting punitive action and inflicting stigma.
Discharge of probationers is considered punitive when based on allegations of misconduct, requiring a proper inquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
It is a well settled position of law that in respect of an order of termination of service simplicitor, it is not a stigmatic one.
Termination of probationary judicial officers must comply with principles of natural justice; uncommunicated adverse remarks cannot justify punitive action.
The discharge of a probationer must comply with procedural requirements, and insufficient assessment of performance leads to implied confirmation, while discharge based on unsatisfactory work isn't p....
The maximum period of probation does not confer a right to confirmation; unsatisfactory performance justifies termination without a disciplinary hearing.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.