Arham Jain
On Monday in Sudhir Mishra v State of UP, following an altercation amongst at least 15 trainee judges over a meal in 2014, the Allahabad High Court ordered the reinstatement of six probationary judicial officials who had been dismissed from their positions in 2014 and 2015.
The six probationers’ service dismissal order was deemed stigmatic by the Full Bench of Justices Jaspreet Singh, Manish Mathur, and Subhash Vidyarthi. It also decided that before they could be released from duty, an investigation was necessary.
The Court ordered “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.”
Sudhir Mishra, Asha Ram Pandey, Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Ashtosh Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar, and Himanshu Mishra are among those who have received relief.
Eleven probationary judicial officers were released in 2014, and four more were released the following year. Reports from the OSD (Inquiry) and Senior Registrar (Judicial) served as the basis for this.
When the Court reviewed the petitions of six of them, it said that the action against them was based on a confidential investigation that found the incident between the trainee cops had occurred in relation to a female officer who was also training with them.
The court also stated that according to the report’s concluding paragraph, the issue seems to be quite severe and needs judicial attention; else, it would send the incorrect message to society. The aforementioned report from the Senior Registrar (Judicial) was then presented to the High Court’s Administrative Committee on September 15, 2014, which decided to accept the report dated September 12, 2014, and send the case to the Full Court for consideration.
The Court further stated that no other report or assessment of the performance and behaviour of these trainee officers was taken into account in the complete court determination on the officers’ discharge.
In light of this, the Court questioned whether a judgment of this nature could have been made without a full investigation and hearing. After reviewing a number of rulings that the petitioners and the High Court had cited, the Bench stated-
It goes without saying that a judicial officer’s conduct should be excellent, but none of the rulings cited by defense attorneys indicate to any legal declaration that a probationary judicial officer’s dismissal or confirmation can be predicated only on his conduct, without mentioning his overall performance during the probationary period.
The Court further reaffirmed that a termination order would be discharge simpliciter if it were founded on an overall assessment of the delinquent employee’s performance rather than any accusation of wrongdoing.
The Court also stated “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 overall 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 overall performance of the work done by the probationer during the period of probation that it would not be stigmatic.”
The court determined that the decision to terminate the officers was solely on the accusation of misbehaviour and did not consider the officers’ overall performance during their probationary period.
Therefore, it decided that the same was stigmatic rather than discharge simpliciter.
While allowing the petition, the Court also stated “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,”
Case Name- Sudhir Mishra v State of UP
Case Number- Writ (A)- 2001502 of 2014
Bench- Justices Jaspreet Singh, Manish Mathur and Subhash Vidyarthi
Click here to access the order
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com