The maximum period of probation does not confer a right to confirmation; unsatisfactory performance justifies termination without a disciplinary hearing.

JUDGMENT

Ms. Lapita Banerji, J.

Under challenge in the present writ petition is, inter alia, an order dated April 09, 2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, by which service of the petitioner was dispensed with being unsatisfactory, under Rule 7 (2) of Part-D of Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951. The impugned order was passed pursuant to a recommendation passed by the Full Court of this Court, communicated through the Registrar General on December 15, 2020. Rule 7 of the 1951 Rules is reproduced, at the very outset, for complete appreciation of the case. Rule 7 reads as under :

"7. (1) Whenever it shall appear to the Judges that vacancy or vacancies in the cadre of the Judicial Branch of the Punjab Civil Service, whether permanent, temporary or officiating, should be filled, they will make a selection from the High Court Register in the order in which the names have been entered in the Register under Rule 1 of this part. The name or names of the selected candidate or candidates will be forwarded to Government for appointment as Subordinate Judges under Article 234 of the Constitution of India. Every Subordinate Judge shall, in the first instance be appointed on probation for two years but this period may be extended from time to time expressly or impliedly so that the total period of probation, including extension, if any, does not exceed three years.

Explanation:- The period of probation shall be deemed to have been extended impliedly if a Subordinate Judge is not confirmed on the expiry of his period of probation.

(2) The Governor of Punjab may, on the recommendation of the High Court, dispense with the services of a Subordinate Judge without assigning any cause, or revert him to his Subordinate post, if any, during the period of his probation.

(3) On the completion of the period of any member of the service, the Governor of Punjab may, on the recommendation of the High Court, confirm him in his appointment, if he is working against a permanent vacancy or, if his work of conduct is reported by the High Court to be unsatisfactory, dispense with his services or revert him to his former substantive post, if any, or extend his period of probation and thereafter pass such orders as he could have passed on the expiry of the first period of probation;

Provided that the completion of the maximum period of three year's probation would not confer on him the right to be confirmed till there is a permanent vacancy in the cadre.

Provided further that if the report by the High Court regarding the unsatisfactory work or conduct of the probationer is made to the Government before the expiry of the maximum period of probation, further proceedings in the matter may be taken and orders passed by the Governor of Punjab dispensing with his service or reverting him to his substantive post even after the expiry of the aforesaid maximum period of probation."

2. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the Full Court's recommendation dated December 15, 2020 (Annexure P-10) along with quashing of the Minutes of the Vigilance Committee dated February 06, 2020 report of the OSD (Vigilance), Haryana, orders of the Hon'ble Administrative Judge dated December 20, 2019 and January 09, 2020, leading to such dispensation of his service. The petitioner has also prayed for his reinstatement to judicial service along with consequential benefits.

3. The petitioner's case briefly is that he qualified the Punjab Civil Services (PCS) Judicial Examination, 2015 and was appointed on March 08, 2016 and joined his service on April 07, 2016 and completed the training on April 08, 2017. He served as a Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Ferozepur and also as Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Rajpura, cumulatively for a period of more than four years till his services were allegedly illegally and arbitrarily dispensed