Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Civil Judge Whose Integrity Was Found 'Doubtful' During Probation Period

The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the dismissal of a Haryana Civil Judge whose integrity was found "doubtful" after receiving several complaints during his probation period.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel rejected the dismissed judge's argument that after completion of the period of probation of two years plus the extended period of one year and in the backdrop of available vacancies in the cadre, his service ought to have been "deemed to be confirmed."

"If deemed confirmation is brought into play, notwithstanding the adverse remarks including that of 'integrity doubtful' based on the lackluster performance, conduct and behaviour of the petitioner, then, an anomalous situation would arise where the probationer despite being unfit for confirmation, is deemed to be confirmed, bringing into the service a Judge of doubtful integrity, whose service record is tainted with adverse remarks," said Chief Justice Nagu speaking for the bench.

The Court remarked, "this would be deleterious to the very concept of probity on which the entire judicial system stands."

These observations were made while hearing the plea of Ankur Lal, seeking quashing the recommendations passed in 2012by which his  probationary services on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at the entry level have been recommended to be dispensed with by the High Court.

Lal was appointed as a Civil Judge in 2008, in the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) in terms of Rule 7-B of Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 (Rules) on two years' probation.

The assessment and review of the work and conduct of the petitioner during his probation was put up before the Administrative Judge and thereafter before the concerned Administrative Committee in 11. The Committee after receiving it from the Administrative Judge  considered the question of confirmation of various probationers including that of the petitioner.

In regard to the petitioner, the matter was deferred till finalization of certain complaints received against the petitioner. The Administrative Committee in 2012 recommended for extension of the period of probation qua the petitioner for six months in the backdrop of the remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report for the years 2010-11 being below average (C) 'integrity doubtful'. The same was confirmed by the Full Court.

An anonymous complaint was received from Bar Association, Ferozepur Jhirka, which was placed by the then Acting Chief Justice before the concerned Administrative Committee, which met on 18.07.2012 and recommended that keeping in view the work, conduct and overall service record of the petitioner, who was then posted as Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, his services be dispensed with during probation. It was also confirmed by the Full Court.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of discharge is that proviso to Rule 7.3 of the Rules of 1951 ought to be read in the attending facts and circumstances of the case to mean that after completion of the period of probation of two years plus the extended period of one year and in the backdrop of available vacancies in the cadre, the petitioner ought to have been deemed to be confirmed.

Rejecting the argument the Court said, "this Court is unable to accept the contention of the petitioner since concept of deemed confirmation is anarchy which has been given up long time ago in service jurisprudence."

Even otherwise, relevant Rule 7.3 proviso clearly stipulates that mere completion of maximum period of three years' probation would not confer on the probationers, the right to be confirmed till there is a permanent vacancy in the cadre, it added.

Perusing the rule, the Court noted that, "on completion of period of probation, the Governor of Haryana may on the recommendation of the High Court either confirm the probation if he is working against the permanent vacancy or if his work and conduct is not satisfactory dispense with the services or extend his period of probation beyond the expiry of the period of probation."

The bench highlighted that, "The petitioner received adverse remarks and was awarded 'B satisfactory' for one year, integrity was doubtful for one year and 'B Average' for third year thereby extending liberty to the employer to dispense with his probationary service in terms of the said Rule."

It also noted that no mala fide was alleged against any particular authority while challenge the order of discharge.

Power Of Employer To Not To Confirm Service During Probation Can't Be Taken Away

The bench observed that, "The concept of probation is to enable the Employer to analyse the work, conduct and behaviour of the appointee during the period of probation to come to a conclusion whether the probationer is suitable to be continued by confirmation in service."

"This power cannot be taken away from the Employer on the anvil of the concept of deemed confirmation. Deemed confirmation is a perilous concept in service jurisprudence which has long been discarded since it erodes into the power of the Employer to assess work, conduct and behaviour of the probationer," it added.

The Court noted that there may be occasions where the Employer being unable to take a decision on the question of confirmation, extends the period of probation for another one year, to give some more time to the probationer to render services as a probationer by giving him further opportunity to improve his lackluster performance rendered in the past.

"This effort of the Employer to afford further opportunity to a probationer may lead to cross the alleged maximum period of probation prescribed in the Rules," it added.

Observing that, the concept of deemed confirmation cannot be brought into play in the present case, the Court dismissed the plea.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate, Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate,

Mr. Akash Gahlawat, Advocate, Mr. Viren Nehra, Advocate,

Mr. Arjun Dosanj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. KDS Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.2.

Title: Ankur Lal v. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and another

Click here to read/download the order