Back
2018 Supreme(All) 803
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND RAJNISH KUMAR, JJ.
SANDEEP SINGH ….Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ….Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition (S/B) Nos. 1501, 1502, 1503, 1519, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1635, 1775, 1776, 1811 of 2014, 1356 and 1357 of 2015, decided on 3rd July, 2018)
Counsel :
Mudit Agarwal, Naveen Kumar Sinha, Ashwani Kumar, Romit Seth, Amar Singh, Surya Mani Royekwar, Dr. Deepti Singh, Sandeep Dixit, Akhilesh Kalra and Avinash Chandra for the Petitioner; C.S.C., U.N. Mishra and Gaurav Mehrotra for the Respondents.
Headnote:U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001—Rules 24(4), 24(5) and 22(3)—Judicial Officers—Probation—Misconduct—Discharge from service—Legality of—Laws remarks made in respect of a fellow lady Judicial Officer, in a public place, i.e., Club—Further, they indulged into scuffle and marpeet to a extent that one of Judicial Officers fell unconscious—A probationer can be discharged provided it is found that he is not suitable for post which he is holding—Petitioners discharged from service simplicitor by an order, relying on a report submitted by Senior Registrar—Rule 24 (4) gives power to Court to discharge probationers from service making recommendation to appointing authority if a probationer has not made sufficient use of his opportunities or has otherwise failed to give satisfaction—Expression “Otherwise failed to give satisfaction” has to be taken into consideration in light of incident which has taken place—Assessment has to be made on basis of overall performance and entire period of probation—Moreover, if discharge simplicitor is based on misconduct, then certainly principles of natural justice would be applicable—Work, conduct and performance of petitioners found satisfactory—Matter also amicably settled between all judicial officers—Petitioners should have been given opportunity to improve rather than straight away terminated—Impugned orders quashed. [Paras 17 to 64]
Result; Referred to Larger Bench.
Hon’ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—Since common questions of law and fact are involved in all the writ petitions, therefore, they are being clubbed together and are being decided by a common judgment.
2. Heard Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mudit Agarwal, Sri Kapil Dev, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashwani Kumar, Sri Akhilesh Kalra and Sri Sandeep Dixit, appearing for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri U.N. Mishra and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the High Court as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. These writ petitions have been filed by various petitioners separately and jointly challenging the discharge orders dated 22.9.2014 and 15.6.2015 from the post of Munsif as a probationer under Rule 24(4) of U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001 (for short ‘’the Rules’) and in some of the writ petitions, order dated 19.9.2014 has also been challenged.
4. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners after qualifying the PCS(J) Examination in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the State of U.P. dated 10.5.2013, joined on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). They were posted in various districts in the State of U.P. and joined on different dates. They continued to perform their work and performance of the petitioners remained satisfactory and no adverse remark was ever given in respect of working and conduct of the petitioners and during their service, no adverse working or improvement memo or advise was ever given to the petitioners. As a consequence of appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), an Induction Training Programme was conducted for the petitioners’ batch i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Phase-II at JTRI, Lucknow during the period from 9.6.2014 to 8.9.2014. On the eve of last day of the training programme i.e. 7.9.2014, the petitioners went for dinner at Charan Club and Resort, Faizabad Road, Lucknow, where they took dinner and consumed liquor also. While they were taking their dinner, it appears that some heated arguments took place between Sri Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Sri Asharam Pandey, Sri Ashwani Panwar, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh and Sri Rahul Singh, which resulted in a scuffle between them, though on the next day, the said officers apologized to each other and the matter was settled amicably.
5. On behalf of some of the petitioners, it has been stated that they were not involved in any misbehaviour or any scuffle and some of them have stated that they are teetotaler and they do not consume liquor at all. The Registrar General of the High Court on 8.9.2014 received a telephonic information about the incident, which has taken place on 7.9.2014. After receiving the said information, the Registrar General put up a note before Hon’ble the then Chief Justice on 9.9.2014. Hon’ble the then Chief Justice called for a report in regard to the incident, which had taken place at Charan Club and Resort, Faizabad Road, Lucknow on 7.9.2014 and directed the Senior Registrar (Judicial) to visit the place of incident and submit a report. The Senior Registrar (Judicial) visited the place of incident and after collecting necessary information, submitted the enquiry report before Hon’ble the then Chief Justice on 12.9.2014. The report of the Senior Registrar (Judicial) was placed before the Administrative Committee of the High Court in its meeting held on 15.9.2014 and the Administrative Committee passed a resolution to place the matter before the Full Court. The agenda was prepared in respect of placing the matter before the Full Court. The matter was placed for consideration before the Full Court and Full Court after deliberation decided to discharge 11 officers from service by a simpliciter discharge order by placing reliance upon Rule 24(4) of the Rules.
6. Later on, one Hon’ble Judge of this Court wrote a letter dated 15.9.2014 indicating therein that the report submitted by the Senior Regist
