Delhi High Court Upholds Termination of Probationary Judicial Officer as Administrative Discharge, Not Punitive Removal

A Division Bench of Justice Anil Ksheterpal and Justice Amit Mahajan heard a writ petition challenging a Notification dated 10.10.2024 and a consequential order dated 14.10.2024 which terminated the services of a probationary member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS). The petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, questioned whether the cessation of the petitioner’s engagement amounted to punitive, stigmatic removal requiring the protections of Article 311(2) and principles of natural justice.

The Court dismissed the writ petition and held that the impugned actions constituted termination simpliciter of a probationer founded on overall unsuitability rather than punishment for proven misconduct. The Bench observed that the Rules of 1970 (Rule 14) empowered the employer to terminate a probationer’s services without assigning reason and that the contemporaneous record—an adverse Annual Confidential Report (ACR) dated 29.08.2024, gradings of “Below Average” for judgments and orders, and complaints placed before the Full Court—formed the basis of an institutional assessment of non‑suitability. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The distinction between an order of termination simpliciter and a punitive or stigmatic order has been consistently drawn with reference to three broad tests: (i) the ‘form’ of the order, i.e. whether the language used is stigmatic; (ii) the distinction between ‘motive’ and ‘foundation’, i.e., whether complaints or inquiries merely prompt the employer to reassess suitability, or culminate in definitive findings of misconduct which form the basis of the action; and (iii) whether there was a full‑scale formal inquiry into allegations of misconduct resulting in findings of guilt, in which event the order, irrespective of its form, is treated as punitive.” The Court further noted that “the termination, being simpliciter in nature, [was] neither punitive nor stigmatic, and [did] not attract the safeguards of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.”

Background

The petitioner was appointed to the DHJS by Notification dated 28.04.2023 and joined on 29.04.2023. After training he was posted as Additional District Judge‑01, South‑West District, Dwarka, and assumed charge on 01.09.2023. On 06.09.2024 a litigant recorded part of a courtroom interaction which was later circulated online. The petitioner said he had raised his voice to control the disturbance and denied any intoxication; the recording, he contended, was selectively edited and defamed him. The Chief Justice took suo motu cognizance on 12.09.2024 and a fact‑finding team was deputed; a Full Court meeting was convened on 13.09.2024 and, by communication dated 19.09.2024, judicial work was withdrawn from the petitioner. Thereafter the impugned Notification and Impugned Order formally terminated his services during probation.

The petitioner argued that the termination was punitive and stigmatic, demanded the protections of natural justice and Article 311(2), and relied on precedents holding that a probationer could not be effectively punished without inquiry. The respondents countered that the ACR of 29.08.2024 and complaints placed before the Full Court pre‑dated the viral clip and formed the foundation for an administrative decision under Rule 14 to discharge a probationer for non‑suitability.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents (including Samsher Singh, Parshottam Lal Dhingra, Pavanendra Narayan Verma and Radhey Shyam Gupta), the High Court applied the threefold test distinguishing administrative discharge from punitive removal, observed absence of any formal disciplinary inquiry or recorded findings of guilt, and concluded the impugned actions were lawful exercises of Rule 14. The petition was dismissed and no costs were awarded.

Case Details: Case No.: W.P.(C) 15486/2024 Case Title: Aman Pratap Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arvind Sangwan, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Vishal Boora, Mr. Gaurav Deshraj, Ms. Kajal Singhal and Mr. Deepesh Paderiya, Advocates. For the Respondent(s): Dhruv Rohatgi, PC, along with Ms. Chandrika Sachdev and Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Advocates, for R1/GNCTD; Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Chandrika Gupta and Ms. Akshna Chawla, Advocates, for R2/Delhi High Court.