Termination of a probationer cannot be deemed punitive unless established misconduct is proven; unsuitability based on overall assessment suffices for discharge under Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 [hereinafter referred to as "Constitution"] assailing Notification bearing dated 10.10.2024 issued by the Respondent No.1 [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Notification"] as also the consequential order dated 14.10.2024 [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"] passed by the Respondent No.2 [hereinafter referred collectively as "Impugned Actions"] through which the services of the Petitioner during probation period have been dispensed with.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

2. In order to examine the merits of the case, the relevant facts are required to be noticed.

3. The Petitioner, having successfully traversed the rigours of selection was appointed to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) by way of Notification dated 28.04.2023, issued by the Respondent No.1, placing him on probation for a period of 02 years. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner joined DHJS on 29.04.2023, and after undergoing the prescribed training, was posted as Additional District Judge-01, South-West District, Dwarka, Delhi, by way of the Posting/Transfer Orders dated 29.08.2023, whereupon he formally assumed charge of his Court on 01.09.2023.

4. It is claimed by the Petitioner that, on 06.09.2024, while he was holding Court, one litigant, in defiance of decorum commenced making and recording a video of the ongoing proceedings without permission, allegedly causing disruption in the Court. Upon noticing the said misconduct, the Petitioner expressed his discomfort and raised his voice when the litigant did not desist. This exchange, as stated, was captured on the video conferencing system, and the recording thereafter was selectively circulated across social media platforms, exposing the Petitioner to public glare and a trial by media.

5. It is claimed by the Petitioner that, this solitary episode, became the fulcrum of the actions that followed. According to him, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, on 12.09.2024, took suo moto cognizance of the said video. Following which, an enquiry team was also deputed; an extensive search operation ensued, which, as pleaded, included a thorough search of the courtroom premises and examination of the staff attached to the court of the Petitioner.

6. In the wake of this enquiry, a Full Court meeting was convened on 13.09.2024. As per the Petitioner, in the said meeting, a decision was taken to dispense with his services. Consequent thereto, by a communication dated 19.09.2024, this Court directed the Principal District & Sessions Judge, South-West, Dwarka, New Delhi to immediately withdraw judicial work from the Petitioner, effectively divesting him of his judicial functions. The entire process culminated in issuance of the Impugned Actions, formally communicating the cessation of his engagement with the DHJS.

7. The Respondent No.2, however, traces a different axis for the culmination of events leading to cessation of the Petitioner's engagement. It is their case that the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the Petitioner for the year 2023 had been recorded by the Inspecting Judges" Committee as early as on 29.08.2024. Subsequently, the said ACR is claimed to be placed before and approved by the Full Court in its meeting held on 13.09.2024, the very meeting that, as per the Petitioner, also considered the fallout of the viral video of the Petitioner.

8. In the int