High Court Can Recommend Termination of Judicial Officer On Probation On Account Of Unsuitability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Discharge Order Of Civil Judge

The Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering a Petition filed by a discharged Judicial Officer who held the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division in M.P. Judicial Services. A challenge was made to an order passed by the State Government, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs based upon the recommendations of the Administrative Committee of the High Court as ratified by the Full Court whereby he had been discharged from services.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait & Justice Vivek Jain held, “In view of the above and in view of the Rule 11(c) of Rules of 1994 that specifically vest power in the High Court to recommend termination of services of judicial officer on probation on account of unsuitability for the post, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order.”

The Petitioner appeared in person while Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The allegations against the petitioner were in the matter of instituting Contempt of Court proceedings against Bar members, taking their apologies, having them touch their ears and do sit-ups for apology. The same treatment was being given to Police personnel appearing in his Court. There were complaints relating to misbehaviour with the Court staff, including female staff of the Court, verbal abuses, threats of physical assault, running after them for assaulting, and leaving the headquarters without permission.

For these conducts, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Principal District & Sessions Judge, the Bar Association and the Superintendent of Police reported the matter against the petitioner, including one matter wherein he sentenced his own Court peon to two months simple imprisonment for misconduct and a fine to the tune of Rs.50. The Portfolio Judge of the District also reported the matter that explosive situation had been created at Jobat, District Alirajpur in view of the complaints being received against the petitioner.

The discharge order had been issued mentioning that the petitioner was unable to complete the probation period satisfactorily and successfully and therefore, as per decision of the Administrative Committee of the High Court and the Full Court, the petitioner had been recommended to be discharged from services.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the resolution of the Full Court duly established that the Full Court did not pass any punitive order against the petitioner, and it simply decided to discharge the petitioner from service by holding that he did not utilize his probation period successfully and satisfactorily. “It is evident from the aforesaid discharge order, so also the resolutions of the Administrative Committee and the Full Court that though material was before the Administrative Committee and the Full Court, but the Full Court decided to simply discharge him from service without any disqualification from future appointment. Therefore, it cannot be held to be a punitive order because neither the Administrative Committee nor the Full Court had resolved to punish the petitioner in any manner”, it said.

The Bench made it clear that the impugned termination order simpliciter mentioned that the petitioner was unable to carry out the probation period satisfactorily and successfully. No other reason was assigned. Therefore, the order couldn’t be termed to be punitive. It was simply a case of discharge/termination simpliciter upon adjudging the suitability of the officer concerned for confirmation and being found unsuitable.

The High Court observed, “Thus, it is clear that once no foundation of misconduct is alleged in the discharge order, it is a discharge simpliciter and cannot be lightly interfered because it is settled that it is only the superior authorities of the department that have to take work from the officer concerned and they are the best people to judge whether the officer concerned should be continued in service or not having regard to his performance, conduct and overall suitability for the job. Even uncommunicated entries can be considered for the purpose of assessing the suitability of a probationer.”

Reference was also made to Rule 11(d) of Rules of M.P. Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 which mentions that on successful completion of probation the probationer shall be confirmed in service on available permanent post and if permanent post is not available then he will be confirmed as soon as permanent post becomes available, if the High Court decides that he has successfully completed the period of probation and he is suitable to hold the post.

“In view of the specific language of Rule 11(d), it is clear that for a probationer to seek confirmation, it is necessary that he should have successfully completed the period of probation and found suitable to hold the post. The petitioner, cannot claim automatic or deemed confirmation of probation period. Rather, it would be a case of deemed extension of probation”, it added.

Thus, finding the Petition to be devoid of merit, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Kaustubh Khera v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:21455)

Appearance

Petitioner: Petitioner in person

Respondent: Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari, Advocate Divya Pal

Click here to read/download Order