Probationer’s Discharge Quashed; Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement and Confirmation After Flawed Inquiry

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard an appeal by a successful Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS) probationer challenging a show cause notice dated 17.02.2020 and a discharge order dated 29.05.2020 issued by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The appeal assailed the Full Court’s decision to discontinue the appellant from service on grounds of alleged misconduct relating to earlier academic pursuits, non-obtaining of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and suppression of past government employment.

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the show cause notice and the discharge order, and directed immediate reinstatement with consequential benefits, including confirmation and fixation of seniority and pay (except back wages). The Court found the alleged misconduct, largely arising from events before the appellant became a judicial officer, did not justify a stigmatic termination and that procedural fairness was not observed in the inquiry. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The services of a probationer could result either in a confirmation in the post or ended by way of termination simpliciter. However, if a probationer is terminated from service owing to a misconduct as a punishment, the termination would cause a stigma on him. If a probationer is unsuitable for a job and has been terminated then such a case is non-stigmatic as it is a termination simpliciter. Thus, the performance of a probationer has to be considered in order to ascertain whether it has been satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If the performance of a probationer has been unsatisfactory, he is liable to be terminated by the employer without conducting any inquiry. No right of hearing is also reserved with the probationer and hence, there would be no violation of principles of natural justice in such a case.” The Court also relied on Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, observing that “No abstract proposition can be laid down ... if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct, or inefficiency or for similar reason without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his discharge it may in a given case amount of removal from service within the meaning of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution.”

Background

The appellant, a Scheduled Tribe candidate who held BA, BEd, LLB and LLM degrees, joined the Education Department, Government of Rajasthan as Teacher Grade–II on 30.12.2014. She applied in response to the RJS advertisement of 18.11.2017, was selected and appointed as trainee RJS on 11.02.2019, joining training on 06.03.2019 and completing induction on 07.03.2020. Complaints before the High Court alleged that she pursued LL.B and B.Ed in the same year contrary to university ordinances, obtained an LL.M. while in government service without permission, failed to obtain an NOC before joining RJS and concealed prior government employment in the interview checklist. The Registrar (Vigilance) issued a show cause notice on 17.02.2020; an inquiry report was placed before the Full Court which resolved to discontinue her services and a discharge order followed on 29.05.2020. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, prompting this appeal.

The Supreme Court examined the chronology and documentary record and noted the alleged academic irregularities and LL.M. related conduct occurred while she served as a teacher, prior to her judicial appointment. The Court accepted the appellant’s account that she had tendered resignation on 25.10.2018 before her interview on 02.11.2018 and that the omission to list past employment in the checklist was not a material suppression warranting stigmatic discharge. The Court found procedural defects in the inquiry — including inadequate opportunity to participate — and held that the Full Court’s resolution amounted to an impermissible punitive stigma in the circumstances. The Court set aside the show cause notice and discharge order, directed reinstatement with confirmation and consequential benefits (except back wages), and clarified that the appellant would be treated as having successfully completed probation.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 756 Case Title: Pinky Meena v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Counsel not specified in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Counsel not specified in the judgment]