Discharge of a probationary judicial officer based on misconduct allegations without a proper inquiry violates constitutional protections, constituting punitive action and inflicting stigma.

ORDER

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan)

The present writ petition has been instituted, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing order, dated 10.08.2018, passed by 2^nd respondent placing petitioner under suspension and further G.O. Ms.No.203, Law (L & LA AND JUSTICE, HOME.COURTS-A) Department, dated 28.12.2018, issued by 1^st respondent discharging her from service as she stated to have been found to be unsuitable to hold the post of Additional Junior Civil Judge (Probationer), as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, to set aside the same and to extend all consequential benefits.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

(a) Petitioner was selected as Junior Civil Judge and joined service as Probationer on 13.10.2016. The initial period of probation was for a period of two years. She has been posted as Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoti, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

(b) During the course of training, as part of Phase-II of Part-I institutional training, Junior Civil Judges were nominated to undergo practical training at A.P. Judicial Academy, and in the process were instructed to visit the High Court from 21.07.2018 to 25.07.2018 to observe the Court proceedings. Petitioner was assigned to watch Court proceedings of a particular Court along with few other trainee Judges. However, on 23.07.2018, petitioner was found to be sitting next to a male trainee colleague Judge, and having conversation with him in an unassigned Court room other than the one she was supposed to be in. On account of said behaviour, there was some disturbance to the Court proceedings. That apart, it was also found that during field survey training from 31.07.2018 to 02.08.2018, in particular, on 01.08.2018, the petitioner and the other male officer belonging to the State of Telangana, rather than attending the field training at designate place with their respective groups, were found to be wandering side by side and were chit-chatting continuously.

(c) Aforesaid incidents have been penned by the Director, A.P. Judicial Academy, by way of suo motu report, dated 30.07.2018, and brought to the notice of 2^nd respondent. Eventually, by proceedings, dated 10.08.2018, petitioner came to be placed under suspension with immediate effect. Further, 2^nd respondent issued show-cause notice, dated 20.08.2018, calling upon petitioner to submit explanation as to why probation should not be terminated and she be discharged from service as contemplated under Rule 11 of the Rules, for the reported improper behaviour and unmannerly attitude while observing Court proceedings besides during field survey.

(d) Petitioner has submitted explanation, dated 01.09.2018. Being dissatisfied with the explanation so furnished, and having regard to the Resolution, dated 05.11.2018, the Administrative Committee of Hon’ble Judges and so also the approval of Full Court of the Hon’ble Judges, 1^st respondent issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.203, dated 28.12.2018, discharging petitioner from service in terms of Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short, “the Rules”). The said order came to be given effect by 2^nd respondent vide orders, dated 31.12.2018. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed.

3. (a) The 2^nd respondent filed counter-affidavit trying to justify the order of discharge. It has been stated that based on suo motu report of the Director, A.P. Judicial Academy, who highlighted the occurrence of incidents stated supra, the matter was placed before the President, A.P. Judicial Academy, who has, in turn, endorsed that the reported behaviour of the two officers since being highly objectionable, to place the same before the Hon’ble Patron-in-Chief. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Administrative Committee of the Hon’ble Judges and in the meeting held on 09.08.2018, the Committee had resolved to place both officers under suspension and the Re