Termination During Probation Is Not Punitive Despite Prior Complaints: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has fortified the employer's right to assess a probationer's suitability, ruling that termination based on unsatisfactory performance does not become punitive merely because it was preceded by a complaint or a preliminary fact-finding inquiry.

Justice Kuldeep Mathur presided over the matter, hearing a challenge against a termination order issued to a Clerk Grade-II by the District and Sessions Judge, Sirohi. The Rajasthan High Court delved into the nuanced distinction between the motive and the foundation of a discharge order for a temporary employee.

Key Takeaways

Employer's Discretionary Power

The ruling affirms that appointing authorities possess the inherent right to assess the overall conduct and efficiency of a probationer before confirmation.

Foundation vs. Motive Test

It reinforces the legal principle that a termination is only punitive if a specific finding of misconduct is the direct basis (foundation) for the order, rather than just the background (motive).

Preliminary Inquiry Status

The Rajasthan High Court established that conducting a preliminary inquiry to verify a probationer's suitability does not automatically convert a termination simpliciter into a disciplinary proceeding.

Legal Protection Limits

Probationers cannot claim the same level of procedural protection as permanent employees unless the termination order is ex-facie stigmatic or punitive.

Judicial Assessment of Probationary Termination

The Rajasthan High Court analyzed whether the impugned order was in substance founded upon misconduct or if the preceding events merely constituted the background for assessing suitability. It was observed that a probationer is appointed on the understanding that their suitability for continuance is to be assessed during the probation period. The bench noted that the mere examination of a complaint does not inherently transform the exercise into a disciplinary proceeding.

Referring to the legal framework, the Rajasthan High Court noted the application of Rule 30 of the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. While the petitioner argued the order was punitive due to a complaint regarding a demand for money, the Court found the order itself did not record any finding of guilt.

Distinguishing between probation and inquiry, the Rajasthan High Court explained that "The distinction between an inquiry undertaken for assessing suitability and an inquiry into misconduct forming the foundation of termination has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court... where findings regarding misconduct are arrived at in an inquiry held behind the back of the employee and such findings form the basis of termination, the order would be punitive; whereas, where no such finding is recorded and the employer merely does not consider it desirable to continue the probationer against whom complaints have been received, the complaints may constitute only the motive for termination."

Distinguishing Motive from Foundation

The Rajasthan High Court relied on Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & Ors. ( "(1999) 3 SCC 60": 1999 CaseBase(SC) 239) to explain that the circumstances leading to termination are often just the 'motive'. Similarly, citing State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh ( "(2005) 5 SCC 569": 2005 CaseBase(SC) 717), the Bench cautioned that treating every fact-finding inquiry as punitive would obliterate the legal distinction between a probationer and a permanent employee. The Court also referred to Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore v. Dr. Pandurang Godwalkar, stating that the appointing authority is entitled to look into complaints while assessing performance.

Ratio

An order terminating a probationer's services on the ground of 'unsatisfactory performance' is an order simpliciter and not punitive, even if preceded by a complaint or preliminary inquiry, provided that no specific finding of misconduct is recorded or made the foundation of the termination order. A misplaced reference to a disciplinary rule (like Rule 19(ii) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958) does not invalidate an otherwise lawful termination during probation if the substance of the decision is based on an assessment of suitability.

Background

The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk Grade-II in August 2023 on a two-year probation under the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. During his tenure, a complaint was received in January 2025 alleging that he demanded Rs.300/- for issuing a release order (Tehrir). Following this, a notice was issued, and the petitioner submitted his explanation. Subsequently, his services were terminated on March 6, 2025, on the grounds of unsatisfactory service during probation.

The petitioner challenged the termination, contending it was punitive and stigmatic, passed without a regular departmental inquiry despite being triggered by a specific allegation of misconduct. The respondents argued that the order was a simple termination (simpliciter) based on an overall assessment of his conduct and suitability. The Rajasthan High Court, after examining the record and precedents like Rajasthan High Court v. Ved Priya & Anr. and Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & Ors. ( "(1999) 3 SCC 60": 1999 CaseBase(SC) 239), concluded that the order did not cast any stigma as it lacked a finding of guilt and dismissed the petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5832/2025
Case Title: Kamlesh Kumar Rajpurohit v. The District And Sessions Judge, Sirohi
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rakesh Arora
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Meenal Singhvi & Mr. Aditya Mahecha for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 23469