LexSARITA CHOUDHARY versus HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1456 : 2025 INSC 289 Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 142 of 2024) 28 February 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of order passed by the High Court terminating two women Judicial Officers from service during probation period; and whether the cessation of services of two Judicial Officers is punitive, arbitrary and thus, contrary to law. Headnotes† Judiciary – Subordinate judiciary – Judicial officers – Termination from service during probation – Six women Judicial Officers terminated on the recommendation of the Administrative Committee of High Court on the ground of low disposal rate of cases and alleged performance issue – Supreme Court, in a suo moto writ petition, requested the Full Court of the High Court to reconsider the termination order – Consequently, only four officers reinstated – Two other officers- petitioners due to low grades in ACRs, low unit value, and complaints regarding management and interpersonal skills, terminated from service during probation – Challenge to – High Court did not deem proper to reinstate the petitioners – Correctness: Held: ACRs which were adverse in nature were either not communicated in time and even after an explanation was received, no effort to expunge the adverse remarks made in the said ACRs on the basis of a consideration of the explanation, they were simply rejected – Reference to the consistent “poor performance” not in accordance with the record, the record speaks otherwise – Inherent contradictions in the ACRs – ‘Other material’- complaints were either concluded or pending against them – If the complaints formed the foundation for these officers to be terminated, an opportunity had * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1457 Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another to be given before termination having regard to Art. 311 read with relevant Conduct Rules – Termination of the two judicial officers is punitive, arbitrary and thus, illegal – Terminations were by way of punishment as the surrounding circumstances show that the terminations were, inter alia, founded on the allegations of the complaints of misconduct and “inefficiency” and were stigmatic in nature – Even though many of the complaints against these officers may have been closed or resulted in advisories/warnings, they could not have been the basis for the impugned terminations – Resolutions of the Administrative Committee followed by the Resolution of the Full Court, orders of the High Court and the Government Orders insofar as the two officers, illegal and contrary to the established principles of law and, liable to be set-aside – Thus, the termination orders vis-a-vis the petitioners set aside including the Resolution and the order/letter of the High Court, order of the State Government and all consequential adverse orders, if any – Petitioners reinstated in their service with all consequential benefits – Constitution of India – Art. 311 – Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 – r.11(c). [Paras 16, 16.1, 18] Service law – Probation – Services of a probationer – When, non-stigmatic termination: Held: Services of a probationer could result either in a confirmation in the post or ended by way of termination simpliciter – However, if a probationer is terminated from service owing to a misconduct as a punishment, the termination would cause a stigma on him – If a probationer is unsuitable for a job and has been terminated then such a case is non-stigmatic as it is a termination simpliciter – Thus, the performance of a probationer has to be considered in order to ascertain whether it has been satisfactory or unsatisfactory – If the performance of a probationer has been unsatisfactory, he is liable to be terminated by the employer without conducting any inquiry – No right of hearing is reserved with the probationer and hence, there would be no violation of principles of natural justice in such a case – Test is, whether, in a given case the termination is simpliciter or by way of punishment – Even though a probationer has no right to hold a post, it would not imply that the mandate of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution could be violated inasmuch as there cannot be any arbitrary or discriminatory discharge or 1458 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Rep
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.