Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Pinky Meena, a Scheduled Tribe candidate, was selected as Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate through the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination 2017. She had previously served as a Teacher Grade-II in the Education Department of Rajasthan from 30.12.2014. After selection, she resigned from the teaching post on 25.10.2018, joined judicial service on 06.03.2019, and completed training successfully on 07.03.2020. However, on 17.02.2020, a show cause notice was issued under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, alleging that she had simultaneously pursued B.Ed and LL.B degrees in the same year, obtained LL.M without permission while teaching, concealed her employment in the application form, did not obtain a No Objection Certificate, and concealed her resignation. An inquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance) behind her back without appointing a Presenting Officer or furnishing the inquiry report. The Full Court of the Rajasthan High Court resolved not to continue her services, leading to a discharge order dated 29.05.2020. The appellant challenged this order before the High Court, which dismissed her writ petition. The Supreme Court considered whether the discharge order was stigmatic and violative of natural justice. The Court noted that the allegations pertained to her prior employment and not to her conduct during probation. The inquiry was conducted without affording her a proper hearing, and the order was based on the inquiry report, making it stigmatic. The Court held that the discharge of a probationer on grounds of misconduct without following principles of natural justice is unsustainable. The Court set aside the discharge order and the High Court's order, and remitted the matter to the Full Court for fresh consideration, directing that the appellant be given an opportunity of hearing and a reasoned decision be passed within three months. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Probationer - Discharge - Stigmatic Order - The discharge of a probationer based on an inquiry report attributing misconduct is stigmatic and cannot be passed without following principles of natural justice. The order of discharge dated 29.05.2020 was set aside as it was based on an inquiry conducted behind the back of the appellant without appointing a Presenting Officer or furnishing the inquiry report. (Paras 15-20) B) Service Law - Probation - Confirmation - Rules 44, 45, 46 of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 - The appellant completed training successfully and was kept under Awaiting Posting Order; no certificate of completion of probation was issued. The Full Court's resolution not to continue the appellant was based on allegations of misconduct, not on unsatisfactory performance. (Paras 3, 13) C) Service Law - Misconduct - Prior Employment - The allegations of simultaneously pursuing B.Ed and LL.B, obtaining LL.M without permission, and concealing employment pertained to the period when the appellant was in the Education Department, not during judicial service. The Education Department took no action. (Paras 5, 6) D) Service Law - Natural Justice - Inquiry - The inquiry conducted by Registrar (Vigilance) was behind the back of the appellant without appointing a Presenting Officer or giving opportunity to cross-examine. The inquiry report was not furnished to the appellant, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 7, 15) E) Service Law - Article 311 of the Constitution of India - The discharge order, being stigmatic and based on misconduct, attracts Article 311. The order was set aside for non-compliance with constitutional safeguards. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the discharge of a probationer judicial officer based on an inquiry report alleging misconduct during prior employment, without affording proper opportunity of hearing, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court dated 24.08.2023 and the discharge order dated 29.05.2020. The matter was remitted to the Full Court of the Rajasthan High Court for fresh consideration, directing that the appellant be given an opportunity of hearing and a reasoned decision be passed within three months.
Law Points
- Probationer's discharge
- Stigmatic order
- Principles of natural justice
- Article 311 of the Constitution of India
- Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification
- Control and Appeal) Rules
- 1958
- Rules 44
- 45
- 46 of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules
- 2010
- Rule 14 of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules
