ISHWAR CHAND JAIN versus HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 26-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
ISHWAR CHAND JAIN 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AND ANOTHER 
MAY 26, 1988 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
Service matter-Whether the High Court was right in recommend-· 
ing termination of the services of the appellant, a judicial officer, on 
probation, on the ground that his work and conduct were not satis-
factory, on complaints of trifling nature and complaints motivated and 
allegations unsubstantiated, against the appellant. 
This appeal by special leave was directed against the Judgment of 
the High Court, dismissing the appellant's writ petition challenging the 
order dispensing with his services. 
The appellant was appointed as Addi. District and Sessions Judge 
on probation for two years. While he was on probation, there were 
certain complaints against him, and an inquiry was held by a Judge of 
the High Court, as a result whereof the High Court by its resolution 
recommended the termination of the appellant's services to the State 
E 
Government. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, 
challenging the said resolution of the High Court. The High Court 
dismissed the writ petition whereupon the State Government issued 
orders terminating the appellant's services. Aggrieved, the appellant 
moved this Court, challenging the orders of the High Court and the 
State Government above said. 
F 
The appellant contended that since the High Court had resolved 
that his services should be terminated on the basis of the inquiry report, 
the constitutional protection available to him under Article 311(2) of the 
Constitution and the principles of natural justice had been violated. 
G 
Counsel for the High Court submitted that the inquiry held was 
merely to judge the appellant's suitability for service, and the appellant 
was not entitled to the constitutional protection of Article 311(2) of the 
Constitution, or to any opportunity of hearing before taking the deci-
sion regarding the termination of his probationary period. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
396 
J.C. JAIN v. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 
397 
HELD: The High Court had no relevant material in coming to 
the conclusion that the appellant's work and conduct was not satis· 
factory during his prohatiOnary period. The material taken into· 
consideration was non-existen\, while the other material was not 
relevant, and the allegations taken into consideration against him 
remained unsubstantiated. The High Court erred in holding the appel-
lant's work and conduct to he unsatisfactory, and in terminating his 
services. (401A-C] 
In one case, adverse remarks made against the appellant by the 
High Court (Bains, J.) bad been directed by this Court in appeal to be 
expunged as they were found to be unjustified and unwarranted. In 
another case, members of the Bar Association had passed a resolution 
condemning the appellant on a trifling matter without applying their 
mind to the question involved. The members of the Bar practising 
before the Court should be aware of the° legal position and they should 
not have passed the resolution condemning the appellant without there 
being any justifiable cause. If the members of the Bar· Association pass 
resolutions against the presiding officers working in subordinate courts 
without any justifiable cause, it would be difficult for the judicial offi-
cers to perform their judicial functions and discharge their responsibili-
ties in an objective and unbiased manner. The High Court, instead of 
protecting the appellant, distressingly took the Bar resolution into consi-
deration in assessing the appellant's work and conduct. [402B; 404B-D] 
The complaints against the appellant were enquired into by 
Justice Sutinder Singh, Vigilance Judge, and his report had formed the 
foundation for the action taken by the High Court against the appellant. 
An analysis of the report of the Vigilance Judge showed that out of.four 
complaints, in respect of two of them the Vigilance Judge had expressed 
A 
B 
c 
I) 
E 
the opinion that the matter needed further investigation and enquiry 
F 
and he was not in a position to record any definite finding on the 
allegations made in those complaints. As regards the third complaint, 
officers had committed no wrong in postponing the pronouncement of 
the order, with a view to give time to the parties to compromise. As 
regards the fourth matter-Khem Chand's complaint-the Vigilance 
Judge had not expressed any opinion. The report of the Vigilance Judge G 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.