Allahabad High Court orders reinstatement of trainee judges discharged from service after scuffle

The Allahabad High Court on Monday ordered reinstatement of six probationary judicial officers who were discharged from service in 2014 and 2015 after an incident of scuffle among at least 15 trainee judges at a dinner in 2014 [Sudhir Mishra v State of UP].The Full Bench of Justices Jaspreet Singh, Manish Mathur and Subhash Vidyarthi held that the order of discharge of service of the six probationers was stigmatic. It further ruled that an enquiry was required prior to their discharge from service.“Consequently, a writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders of discharge dated 22.9.2014 and 15.6.2015 as well as the resolution of Full Court dated 15.9.2014 and 23.5.2015. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioners forthwith as Probationary Judicial Officers on the post held by them prior to passing of the impugned order. Their continuance or otherwise in service shall be subject to their confirmation in service,” the Court ordered..Those who have been granted relief are Sudhir Mishra, Asha Ram Pandey, Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Ashtosh Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar and Himanshu Mishra.A total of 11 probationary judicial officers were discharged in 2014 and a year later, four more were discharged. This was based on reports submitted by the Senior Registrar (Judicial) and OSD (Inquiry)..Considering the petitions of six of them, the Court noted that action against them had been taken on the basis of a discreet inquiry that revealed the altercation had taken place between the trainee officers in reference to a woman officer also undergoing training with them.“Report in its penultimate paragraph states that the matter appears to be quite serious and requires a judicial frown else it will spell wrong message in the society. The said report by the Senior Registrar (Judicial) was thereafter placed before the Administrative Committee of the High Court on 15.9.2014 which resolved that the report dated 12.9.2014 be accepted and the matter be referred to the Full Court for discussion,” the order said..The Court added that the full court resolution on discharge of the officers did not indicate consideration of any other report or evaluation of work and conduct of these trainee officers. In this backdrop, the Court considered whether such decision could have been passed without a proper inquiry and opportunity of hearing. Having examined various judgments relied upon by the petitioners and the High Court, the Bench said,“The aspect that the conduct of a judicial officer should be unblemished goes without saying but at the same time, none of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for opposite parties indicate any enunciation of law that discharge of a probationary judicial officer or his confirmation can be based solely on the aspect of conduct without adverting to his over all performance during the probation period.”.Further, the Court reiterated that in case an order of termination is based on an overall evaluation of performance of the delinquent employee and is not based on any allegation of misconduct, the same would constitute discharge simpliciter.It added that in case the employer has conducted an inquiry in order to seek validation or otherwise of any allegation of misconduct, it would constitute the foundation of the order.“It is therefore an inevitable inference of the judgments referred to herein above that if the basis of order of termination of service is a specific act of misconduct irrespective of over all evaluation of performance of duties during the probation period, it would amount to foundation of an order even though couched in simpliciter terms and it is only when the order of simpliciter discharge is based on over all performance of the work done by the probationer during the period of probation that it would not be stigmatic.”.The overall performance of the officers as probationers was not evaluated at all by the full court and the decision to discharge them was based on the allegation of misconduct, the Court concluded. Hence, it ruled that the same was not the discharge simpliciter but in fact stigmatic.“Since the petitioners' discharge has clearly been held to be stigmatic, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have held an inquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) of Constitution of India. Such a course having not been followed, the impugned orders are clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and therefore violative of not only Article 311(2) but also of Article 14 of Constitution of India. The question No. B therefore also is decided in favour of petitioners,” the Court said while allowing the petitions. .Senior Counsel JN Mathur and Sandeep Dixit with advocates Avinash Chandra and SM Singh Royekwar argued for the petitioners.Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra represented the High Court..[Read Judgment]