Summary
A probationer Civil Judge in the Rajasthan Judicial Service was discharged after a Full Court resolution based on a vigilance inquiry into allegations that, while a government teacher, she pursued LL.B./B.Ed. and LL.M. degrees simultaneously with service, did not obtain a no-objection certificate, and failed to disclose her past government service in the interview checklist. The Court set aside the show cause notice and discharge order: the alleged misconduct predated her judicial service, she had resigned before the checklist was submitted so the omission was minor, her probation performance was unblemished, and the stigmatic discharge without a proper hearing violated natural justice.
Issues
- Whether alleged irregularities committed while the appellant was a teacher in the Education Department, before joining the judicial service, could ground her discharge as a probationer Civil Judge.
- Whether non-mention of past government service in the interview checklist, submitted after she had resigned, amounted to suppression of material information under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.
- Whether a probationer whose performance was not alleged to be unsatisfactory could be discharged under Rules 44 to 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.
- Whether the discharge, founded on an inquiry report finding misconduct, was stigmatic and punitive and therefore required compliance with natural justice.
Provisions considered
- Rules 44, 45 and 46, Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010Rule 44 places direct recruits on two years' probation, Rule 45 provides for confirmation if the Court is satisfied of fitness, and Rule 46 permits discharge or extension of probation for unsatisfactory progress or performance. Since nobody alleged that the appellant's performance during probation was unsatisfactory, and she completed training with distinction, Rule 46 could not justify ending her service in the manner adopted. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- Rule 14, Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010Rule 14 debars a candidate found guilty of impersonation, fabricated documents, false statements, suppression of material information or unfair means. The Court held that at best there was an omission to mention past government service, reasonably explained by the fact that she was no longer in service when the checklist was submitted, which did not attract the rule's consequences. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- Articles 14, 16 and 311(2), Constitution of IndiaEven though a probationer has no right to the post, discharge cannot be arbitrary, discriminatory or without application of mind under Articles 14 and 16; following Shamsher Singh, discharge of a probationer for misconduct without a proper inquiry and reasonable opportunity may amount to removal within Article 311(2). (¶¶ 26, 27)
- Rule 16, Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958The show cause notice to the appellant was issued under this rule and an inquiry report followed, which the Full Court relied upon to discontinue her service. (¶ 3)
Held
- Misconduct, if any, in obtaining the LL.B. and B.Ed. degrees in the same year and the LL.M. while in service relates to the period when the appellant was a teacher in the Education Department and not a judicial officer; the Education Department took no action, and these allegations could not ground her discharge as a Civil Judge. (¶¶ 6, 17)
- The appellant resigned from her teaching post on 25.10.2018, before submitting the interview checklist on 02.11.2018, so non-disclosure of past government service was at most an omission, not a material irregularity or serious misconduct warranting discharge, particularly given her unblemished completion of training and her tuberculosis during the period; this was not a case of suppressing criminal antecedents bearing on her commitment to the judiciary. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- Non-production of a no-objection certificate from the former employer was reasonably explained, as she had already resigned when she appeared for the interview and when the result was declared; non-disclosure of past government service cannot be a ground for discharge. (¶ 19)
- Rule 46 permits discharge of a probationer only for unsatisfactory progress or performance, which was nobody's case here; Rule 14 on employment by irregular means was not attracted to a minor omission with a reasonable explanation. The appellant had effectively been awarded capital punishment for a minor irregularity. (¶¶ 21, 23)
- A probationer's service may end by confirmation or termination simpliciter, but termination founded on misconduct as a punishment is stigmatic; where the discharge order or surrounding circumstances show it was not based solely on assessment of work and conduct during probation, it is punitive. Courts look at the substance, not the form, of the termination, and Articles 14 and 16 forbid arbitrary discharge or absence of application of mind. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
- The discharge order violated the principles of natural justice because the appellant was not given an opportunity of hearing in the inquiry that was required; per Shamsher Singh, discharge of a probationer for misconduct without a proper inquiry and reasonable opportunity to show cause may amount to removal under Article 311(2). (¶ 27)
- Greater representation of women in the judiciary improves the quality of judicial decision-making and promotes gender equality; the appellant, a Scheduled Tribe candidate who overcame societal barriers, would benefit the judicial system, and in the peculiar facts the show cause notice and discharge deserved to be set aside. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31)
Result
Appeal allowed; show cause notice dated 17.02.2020 and discharge order dated 29.05.2020 quashed; appellant to be reinstated forthwith with consequential benefits including seniority as per the merit list and notional pay fixation, but without back wages; she is to be treated as having successfully completed probation and as a confirmed employee; pending applications disposed of.