RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT v. VED PRIYA INSC 293

Rajasthan High Court vs Ved Priya INSC 293 Date: 18th March, 2020

Facts: Ved Priya, the respondent, was a former judicial officer, and was recruited into the Rajasthan Judicial Services in 2002, appointed as a Civil Judge. He was placed in probation for a period of 2 years from 2002 which was further extended by two months in 2004. Allegations of misdemeanour and corruption in discharge of judicial functions were received during the probation period against a few judicial officers including Ved Priya, on the basis of which the Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court called for the records and submitted a report in 2004. The 5 judge committee sought to determine the suitability of the probationers, and relied upon numerous materials, including reports submitted by their District Judges, Inspecting Judges, ACRs as well the aforementioned report submitted by the Registrar. The services of two judicial officers, including Ved Priya , were not confirmed. On the recommendation of the High Court, the State Government dispensed with the services of Ved Priya. Ved Priya approached the Rajasthan High Court and filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the termination order and reinstatement of his services. The High Court proceeded to evaluate the reasons behind the termination of the respondent, with a view to determine whether the action of the appellant was arbitrary or illegal. Taking note of the ‘good’ service record of the Respondent No.1 and the positive feedback given by his reporting authority and the endorsements by the Inspecting Judges, the Court viewed that there was no material on the basis of which the Full Court could resolve to dispense with the services of Respondent and quashed the termination order and directed reinstatement of Respondent. A review was filed by the Appellant, who contended that the Division bench failed to take note of the special report by the Registrar that showed how the respondent had, without competence, granted bail, in two matters pertaining to offences under the Narcotics, Drugs, and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (NDPS Act), however, this review petition was dismissing by noting that the report had been kept in mind. Issue: Whether the termination of the Respondent, Ved Priya, a probationary judicial officer, was punitive and violative of the principles of natural justice, or whether it was a lawful exercise of administrative discretion in assessing the suitability of a probationer for confirmation. Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgement of the High Court was set aside and the order of discharge whereby services of the Respondent, Ved Priya were dispensed with during probation was approved. Majority Decision Reasoning: Probation is meant to assess the suitability of a candidate for permanent employment. Termination during probation is not punitive unless it is based on misconduct or allegations that harm future career prospects. The respondent, as a probationer, had no indefeasible right to continue his service. The order cited unsatisfactory performance not specifical allegations or misconduct, therefore, no inquiry under Article 311 was required. The termination decision was based on an overall performance assessment rather than punitive allegations. The respondent’s actions, granting bail in NDPS cases contrary to legal jurisdiction, demonstrated negligence and unsuitability. Complaints against respondent were not the foundation of the termination, but rather the overall inability to meet the standards of judicial service. Impact of the case: Distinguishes between punitive and non-punitive termination, a probationary officer’s removal on grounds of unsuitability does not automatically necessitate an inquiry under Article 311(2). Highlights the scope of natural justice in employment matters, the decision underscores that allegations casting aspersions on character, such as corruption, cannot form the basis of termination without due process.