A probationary employee can be terminated without an inquiry unless the termination is punitive, in which case protections under Article 311 of the Constitution apply.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 09.02.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh accepting the recommendation of the High Court of Chhattisgarh for termination of service of the petitioner who is a member of Lower Judicial Service and posted at the relevant time as Civil Judge Class-II, Kanker. The petitioner has also challenged the recommendation of Internal Complaints Committee (for short “the ICC”) report dated 06.04.2016 (Annexure P/2) (which has been received by the petitioner vide memo dated 26.10.2016) wherein the complaint made by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The brief facts, as reflected from the records are that the petitioner was selected on the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level) in the examination conducted in the year 2012-13. She was appointed on probation for a period of 2 years vide order dated 12.12.2013 (Annexure P/3) from the date the petitioner assumes charges. Accordingly, she joined her duty on 27.12.2013. It has also been contended that when the petitioner was taking training with Civil Judge Class-I at Ambikapur, she has faced multiple unwelcome verbal connotation and conduct which were sexual in nature from the said officer. It has also been alleged that this was continued for quite some time but she has not made complaint to senior officer as she is newly appointed judicial officer. After completion of training, the petitioner was given independent charge of the post of First Civil Judge Class-II at Ambikapur in August 2014. It has also been contended that most of the Senior Magistrates were transferred and the only senior Magistrate available in the Ambikapur was Mr. XYZ under whom 4 trainee officers were posted (2 male and 2 female). Usually when the petitioner used to visit Mr. XYZ in his chamber for guidance in judicial matters, his behavior was embarrassing as it contained unwelcome embarrassing verbal connotation of sexual nature, which gradually became more frequent and intense. Initially, the petitioner had to report about the conduct of Mr. XYZ to the District and Session Judge, Ambikapur orally and thereafter in writing. On the basis of complaint made by the petitioner, the High Court has constituted the ICC, who has submitted its report on 06.04.2016 wherein it has been held that the allegation made by the complainant has not been found proved. However, on the report of the ICC, the service of the petitioner was terminated which is stigmatically. It has also been contended that against the report submitted by the ICC, the petitioner has preferred a review application dated 21.11.2016, which has also been rejected vide report dated 05.01.2017 without any consideration to the submissions made by the petitioner.

3. It has also been contended that as per "Note" of Regulation 7 of the Chhattisgarh Judicial Officers (Confidential Rolls) Regulations, 2015 (for short “the Regulations, 2015”), the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2015-16 should have been communicated to the petitioner on or before 01/08/2016, but the same was communicated vide letter dated 10/04/2017 i.e. after two months from her termination from the service on 09/02/2017 and Rule 9 of the Regulations, 2015 deals with representation against adverse remarks within 15 days of the date of its receipt. Thus, the petitioner’s opportunity to make representation has been violated by delay communication of adverse ACR. It has also been submitted that ACR has been written de hors the circular/direction of the State Government, thus, adverse ACR should have not been acted upon. It has also been contended that in the ACR for the year 2015-16, it has been mentioned that "She would not be able to discharge any other job". This remark takes away the petitioner's right to livelihood enshrined under Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has also been contended that as per Rule 4 (C) of the High Court Ru