Termination Of Probationary Judge Not Punitive As Adverse ACR And Unsuitability Formed Basis, Not Viral Video Allegations: Delhi High Court
Termination, being simpliciter in nature, is neither punitive nor stigmatic, and does not attract the safeguards of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India or the principles of natural justice applicable to disciplinary proceedings
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a probationary Judicial Officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) challenging the termination of his services, holding that the discharge was a termination simpliciter based on overall unsuitability and not a punitive or stigmatic action founded on misconduct. As per the facts, a video went viral on social media with an altercation between the Judge and a litigant.
The bench further noted in the matter that a limited fact-finding exercise following the circulation of the video did not culminate in any adjudication of guilt and could not be treated as the foundation of the termination. At best, the incident constituted a contextual factor and not the legal basis for the decision.
The Court held that a simpliciter termination of a probationer is neither punitive nor stigmatic and does not attract Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Reiterating the settled distinction between “motive” and “foundation”, it ruled that termination based on overall performance and suitability remains non-punitive even if preceded by complaints or preliminary assessments, so long as no formal inquiry results in findings of misconduct.
While explaining Rule 14 of the DHJS Rules, 1970 that it expressly permits termination of a probationer without assigning reasons, a bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal, and Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “…we are unable to accept the Petitioner’s contention that the Impugned Notification and the Impugned Order are vitiated as being punitive, stigmatic or founded on a clandestine inquiry into the viral video incident. On the facts as they emerge from the record, the termination of the Petitioner‟s services constitutes a legitimate exercise of the High Court’s power under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1970, grounded in an adverse ACR, complaints bearing upon suitability, and a considered Full Court assessment of the non-suitability of a probationary judicial officer. Tested against the settled principles as enumerated in the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, the Impugned Actions clearly fall on the side of termination simpliciter of a probationer for unsuitability, and not punitive removal for misconduct”.
“Examined through this settled judicial lens, this Court finds no material to conclude that the Petitioner’s termination was founded upon established misconduct. The termination order does not contain any stigmatic language or refer to any finding of guilt; it is explicitly casted as a termination during probation. The contemporaneous record reveals that the ACR with adverse remarks on work and behaviour, along with complaints placed before the Full Court, formed the substratum of its institutional opinion regarding the non-suitability. In the considered view of this Court, the limited fact-finding said to have followed the viral video incident, lacked the essential attributes of a formal inquiry and not culminated in recorded conclusions, and, therefore, cannot be elevated to the status of the foundation of the action so as to attract the safeguards of Article 311(2) of the Constitution”.
Senior Advocate Arvind Sangwan appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao appeared for the respondent.
In the present matter, the petitioner had contended that his removal was triggered by a viral video circulating on social media, allegedly portraying him as misbehaving in court, and argued that the termination was in substance punitive, attracting the safeguards of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
The Court examined the challenge to a notification and consequential order by which the services of the petitioner, appointed on probation in April 2023, were dispensed with under Rule 14 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970.
Rejecting this plea, the Division Bench noted that the petitioner’s Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for 2023 had been recorded prior to the viral incident and contained adverse remarks regarding his courtroom behaviour and quality of judicial work, with his judgments graded as “below average”.
The Bench held that no formal departmental inquiry, charge-sheet, or finding of misconduct had been recorded against the petitioner. The limited fact-finding exercise following the circulation of the video did not culminate in any adjudication of guilt and could not be treated as the foundation of the termination. At best, the incident constituted a contextual factor and not the legal basis for the decision.
“…this Court is satisfied that the Impugned Notification and the Impugned Order represent a lawful exercise of the Rules of 1970, to discontinue the services of a probationer found unsuitable for retention. The decision is founded upon an overall assessment of the Petitioner’s performance, conduct, and service record, including the adverse ACR and complaints placed before the Full Court, and does not rest upon any established or adjudicated misconduct”, the bench further observed.
Therefore, concluding that the Full Court’s decision reflected a bona fide assessment of the petitioner’s fitness to continue in judicial service, the Bench upheld the termination and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the action was neither stigmatic nor violative of constitutional safeguards.
Cause Title: Aman Pratap Singh v. Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:996-DB]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Arvind Sangwan, Sr. Adv., Vishal Boora, Gaurav Deshraj, Kajal singhal and Deepesh Paderiya, Advocates.
Respondents: Dhruv Rohatgi, PC, Chandrika Sachdev, Dhruv Kumar, Raj Shekhar Rao, Sr. Adv., Rajat Aneja, Chandrika Gupta and Akshna Chawla, Advocates.