2020 (3) TMI 815 - SC - Indian Laws

Termination Order - Action against the Judicial officer by the High Court - Misconduct - Charge of corruption - seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits and seniority - High Court vehemently contended that the termination order could not be labelled as punitive or arbitrary or having been passed without sufficient material - HELD THAT - The entire objective of probation is to provide the employer an opportunity to evaluate the probationer s performance and test his suitability for a particular post. Such an exercise is a necessary part of the process of recruitment, and must not be treated lightly. Written tests and interviews are only attempts to predict a candidate s possibility of success at a particular job. The true test of suitability is actual performance of duties which can only be applied after the candidate joins and starts working. Probationers have no indefeasible right to continue in employment until confirmed, and they can be relieved by the competent authority if found unsuitable. Its only in a very limited category of cases that such probationers can seek protection under the principles of natural justice, say when they are removed in a manner which prejudices their future prospects in alternate fields or casts aspersions on their character or violates their constitutional rights. There is nothing on record in the present case to infer that the motivation behind the removal was any allegation. Instead, it was routine confirmation exercise. The evaluation of services rendered during the probationary period was made at the end of the first respondent s tenure, along with 92 others. Vigilance reports were called not just for the Respondent No. 1 petitioner, but also for at least ten other candidates - It is thus clear that the object was not to verify whether the allegations against the first respondent had been proved or not, but merely to ascertain whether there were sufficient reasons or a possible cloud on his suitability, given the higher standard of probity expected of a judge. Since Respondent No.1 has failed to establish that the High Court intended or has actually punished him for any defined misconduct, it stands crystallized that the object of the High Court on the administrative side was to verify the suitability and not enquire into the allegations against the first respondent. Independently also, it is not found that the foundation was the allegations but it was based upon a holistic assessment of the respondent s service record. Even taking an effects based approach, we do not feel that the order of non confirmation or the preceding circumstances would prejudice the respondent, meriting a higher procedural requirement. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the termination of Respondent No. 1 was punitive or arbitrary.
2. The scope of judicial review in the context of termination of a probationary judicial officer.
3. The necessity of an opportunity of hearing before termination.
4. The adequacy of material considered for termination.
5. The distinction between termination of a probationer and a confirmed employee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the termination of Respondent No. 1 was punitive or arbitrary:
The core issue was whether the termination of Respondent No. 1, a probationary judicial officer, was punitive or arbitrary. The respondent contended that the termination was punitive, resulting from unsubstantiated allegations of corruption without due inquiry or hearing. The Division Bench of the High Court found the termination punitive, given the absence of material justifying the decision and the lack of an opportunity for the respondent to be heard.

2. The scope of judicial review in the context of termination of a probationary judicial officer:
The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial review under Article 226 has limited scope and should not extend to acting as an appellate authority. The High Court's decision to interfere with the administrative decision of the Full Court was deemed inappropriate. The collective wisdom of the Full Court under Article 235 of the Constitution deserves respect and weightage.

3. The necessity of an opportunity of hearing before termination:
The respondent argued that the termination violated the principles of natural justice as he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. The Supreme Court clarified that while probationers do not have an indefeasible right to continue until confirmed, they can seek protection under natural justice principles if the termination is stigmatic. However, in this case, the Court found no evidence that the termination was punitive or based on specific allegations of misconduct.

4. The adequacy of material considered for termination:
The appellant contended that the termination was based on sufficient material, including the Registrar (Vigilance) report and other assessments. The Supreme Court noted that the evaluation of a probationer's suitability involves both quantitative and qualitative assessments. The respondent's consistently 'Good' ACRs did not guarantee confirmation. The vigilance report highlighted the respondent's incompetence in granting bail in NDPS matters, which was a relevant factor in determining suitability.

5. The distinction between termination of a probationer and a confirmed employee:
The Supreme Court highlighted the fundamental difference between terminating a probationer and a confirmed employee. Probationers do not enjoy the same protections under Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the termination of a probationer based on overall performance does not require an inquiry unless it is punitive in nature. The order of termination in this case was found to be based on a holistic assessment of the respondent's performance, not on specific allegations of misconduct.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and approving the order of discharge dated 30.09.2004. The termination of Respondent No. 1 was found to be non-punitive and based on an overall assessment of his suitability during the probation period. The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in such matters and the necessity of respecting the collective wisdom of the Full Court on the administrative side. No order as to costs was made.