REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR. versus JAYSHREE CHAMANLAL BUDDHBHATTI

Citation: [2013] 11 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 22-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. GOKHALE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 11 S.C.R. 395 
REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & 
ANR. 
# 
v. 
JAYSHREE CHAMANLAL BUDDHBHATTI 
(Civil Appeal No. 9346 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 22, 2013 
[H.L. GOKHALE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Judicial service -
Subordinate judicial officer -
Termination of service - During probation period - Without 
affording opportunity of hearing - Termination order set aside 
by High Court on the ground that it was in breach of Art. 311 
A 
B 
c 
of the Constitution - Held: If the inquiry is conducted to 
0 
assess the suitability of the probationer, it cannot be faulted 
- But if in the course of inquiry any a/legations are made 
against the probationer, which results into a stigma, the 
probationer ought to be afforded protection u!Art. 311(2) - In 
the present case no opportunity was afforded to the officer -
The facts of the case, ·also do not establish her unsuitability 
E 
to the post - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 311(2). 
Judiciary - Subordinate judiciary - Protection of - It is 
duty of the High Court to protect judicial officers against 
unjustified allegations and to see that hostile work 
F 
environment for junior judicial officers is eliminated, in order 
to encourage them to put in good judicial work without fear or 
favour. 
The respondent, obtained a high rank in the selection 
G 
for judicial service. She was given an independent 
posting as a Civil Judge, Junior Division. During her 
probation, discreet inquiry was conducted and thereafter 
preliminary inquiry was conducted. On the basis of the 
395 
H 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 
A report of the preliminary inquiry, the services of the 
respondent were terminated. She challenged the 
termination order by filing writ petition. The· High Court 
allowed the petition and set aside the termination order 
and directed her reinstatement with back wages, on the 
B ground that the termination was in breach of Article 311 
of the Constitution, inasmuch as she was not informed 
of the charges against her, nor was she given the 
opportunity of being heard in respect thereof. Hence the 
present appeal. 
c 
The question for consideration was whether the 
present case was a case of termination simplicitor of the 
services of a probationer on account of her unsuitability 
for the post that she was holding, or whether it was a 
termination of her services after holding an inquiry 
D behind her back and without giving her an opportunity 
to defend. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. If a finding against a probationer is arrived 
at behind his back on the basis of the inquiry conducted 
into the allegations made against him, and if the same 
formed the foundation of the order of discharge, the same 
would be bad and liable to be set aside. If it is a case of 
deciding the suitability of a probationer, and for that 
F limited purpose any inquiry is conducted, the same 
cannot be faulted as such. However, if during the course 
of such an inquiry any allegations are made against the 
person concerned, which result into a stigma, he ought 
to be afforded the minimum protection which is 
G contemplated under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of 
India even though he may be a probationer. The 
protection is very limited viz. to inform the person 
concerned about the charges against him, and to give 
him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. [Paras 27 
H and 28] [421-F-G; 422-B-C] 
REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT v. 
397 
JAYSHREE CHAMANLAL BUDDHBHATTI 
1.2. The facts of the present case indicate that apart 
A 
from the fact that no opportunity was afforded to the 
respondent, even the material placed on record did not 
establish any such aspect which would lead to a 
conclusion of unsuitability. The disposal of the 
respondent was very good, and the complaints by the 
subordinate staff were clearly motivated. There was no 
involvement of the respondent in the suicide by the wife 
B 
of another judicial officer, and all that the High Court 
administration could lay hand on was the telephonic 
conversations which the respondent had with the judicial c 
officer. The inference of unsuitability drawn by the High 
Court administration was therefore totally uncalled for. 
The impugned judgment setting aside the termination 
order issued on the ground of unsuitability is, therefore, 
fully justified. [Para 31] [424-C-F] 
D 
1.3. High Court administration had first conducted a 
discreet inquiry against the respondent, and

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