Nothing Stigmatic About The Order: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Discharge Of Judge’s Peon During Probation Period
The Himachal Pradesh High Court was considering a petition challenging the order whereby the petitioner was discharged from service during the period of probation, while working as Peon of Choice of one of the Judges of the Court.
Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld an order of discharge passed against a Peon of Choice of one of the Judges of the Court and noted that the suspension was done only on account of the Rule which provides the employer to take necessary steps. The High Court held that there was nothing stigmatic about the order.
The High Court was considering a petition challenging the order whereby the petitioner was discharged from service during the period of probation, while working as Peon of Choice of one of the Judges of the Court on account of having rendered unsatisfactory services.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj held, “It is thus apparent that the suspension was only on account of the Rule which provides the employer as such to take necessary steps as such and he was also granted the necessary subsistence allowance thereafter vide office order dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P-5).”
“In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the satisfaction of the employer having been breached, the employer was well justified in discharging the employee during the period of probation and no fault can be found in the said process”, it added.
Senior Advocate Sunita Sharma represented the Petitioner while Advocate Janesh Gupta represented the Respondent.
Arguments
It was the petitioners’ case that he was suspended on the basis of criminal proceedings initiated against him and it was necessary to lift the veil against the order of the discharge. Reference was made to the order wherein the petitioner-employee was placed under suspension on account of the lodging of FIR against the petitioner under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the appointment was done on co-terminus basis as Peon of Choice while exercising the powers under Article 229 of the Constitution read with Item No. 4(B) of Schedule-III Part-D, (Class-IV) of The Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and the Members of Staff (Recruitment, Promotion, Conditions of Service, Conduct & Appeal Rules, 2015. The Bench noticed that as per the terms of the appointment order, the appointment was made on a co-terminus basis and was also liable to be terminated even before the term of the Judge, at any time, without assigning any reason and without any notice, if his work and conduct were not found satisfactory.
The Bench also took note of the fact that the impugned order had been passed before the probation period could be confirmed. “It is apparent that the order as such does not refer to any criminal proceedings on the basis of which the termination had been done and is only on account of the fact that the services of the petitioner were found unsatisfactory and it was done during the period of probation and there is nothing stigmatic about the order”, it added.
The Bench further noticed that the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with during the period of probation within a period of eight months from when he was appointed on probation, and there is no reference to the criminal proceedings in the said order. As per the Bench, the same could not be termed as stigmatic. In light of such facts and circumstances, the Bench dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Faqeer Chand v. High Court of Himachal Pradesh ( Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:45261)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sunita Sharma, Advocate Sugandh Verma
Respondent: Advocate Janesh Gupta