HC upholds discharge of Haryana probationary judge: ‘deemed confirmation a perilous concept'
The ruling, pronounced on Thursday by a bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissed Lal's writ petition challenging the decision of the high court's Full Court, which recommended his discharge on July 23, 2012. Acting on these recommendations, the Haryana Government issued an order on December 4, 2012, terminating his probationary services.
Lal had approached the high court through Civil Writ Petition No. 17822 of 2013, seeking to quash both the Full Court's recommendation and the discharge order. He had served as a probationary civil judge from 2009 to 2012, but his service record reflected multiple adverse remarks. These included a 'B-Satisfactory' rating in 2009–10, a 'C–Below Average' rating with the remark 'integrity doubtful' in 2010–11, and a 'B–Average' rating in 2011–12, during which the Bar Association of Ferozepur Jhirka submitted an anonymous complaint against him.
The Administrative Committee had recommended that his services be dispensed with, a view endorsed by the Full Court and conveyed to the government, culminating in the discharge order.
In court, Lal argued that under Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, he was entitled to deemed confirmation upon completion of three years of probation, especially in light of available vacancies. The bench rejected this argument, holding that deemed confirmation requires both a permanent vacancy and satisfactory service—neither of which was applicable in Lal's case.
'There is no allegation of mala fide intent on the part of the authorities,' the court noted.
Emphasising the importance of integrity in the judiciary, the bench observed in its judgment: 'The concept of probation is to enable the Employer to analyse the work, conduct and behaviour of the appointee… This power cannot be taken away… Deemed confirmation is a perilous concept in service jurisprudence…'
'If deemed confirmation is brought into play… then an anomalous situation would arise where the probationer, despite being unfit, is deemed to be confirmed, bringing into the service a Judge of doubtful integrity. This would be deleterious to the very concept of probity on which the entire judicial system stands,' it added.
The court found no procedural irregularity in the discharge decision and ordered that Lal's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) be returned to the relevant branch.
With this ruling, the high court has reinforced the principle that integrity and performance during probation are non-negotiable in judicial appointments, and automatic confirmation cannot override a service record marred by adverse remarks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Punjab: HC to hear SAD leader Majithia's plea against his arrest, remand on Jul 4
Chandigarh, The Punjab and Haryana High Court will hear on Friday Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia's plea against his arrest and subsequent remand in a disproportionate assets case registered against him by the Vigilance Bureau. Punjab: HC to hear SAD leader Majithia's plea against his arrest, remand on Jul 4 The matter came up before the bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, who adjourned the hearing for a day to allow Majithia's counsel to place a fresh remand order of the former Akali minister issued in the case. Majithia's counsel Arshdeep Singh Kler said they have challenged the arrest by the Vigilance Bureau and his remand order by a Mohali court. The court directed for placing Majithia's fresh remand order on record, he said, adding that the case will now be heard on Friday. Majithia was sent to a seven-day vigilance remand by the Mohali court on June 26. The court Wednesday extended the remand by four more days after his seven-day remand ended. The VB on June 25 arrested Majithia in the DA case allegedly involving laundering of ₹ 540 crore of "drug money". Majithia on July 1 moved the high court, calling the arrest "political witch-hunting and vendetta" for being a vocal critic of the current dispensation. In his petition, he sought appropriate relief against "illegal" arrest and subsequent remand granted in the FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. "The said FIR is a result of political witch-hunting and vendetta, initiated by the present political dispensation with the sole object of maligning and harassing the petitioner who has been a vocal critic and political opponent," the petition said. He submitted that the FIR registered against him is "patently illegal" while his arrest was carried out in "gross violation of settled legal procedures". "The remand application filed by the investigating agency lacked any concrete or urgent investigative ground and merely relied on broad, speculative allegations such as the petitioner's alleged influence, foreign connections, and general statements about the need to confront him with documents or digital devices," the plea said. Majithia submitted that the Supreme Court, by its detailed order on March 4, had refused custodial interrogation of the petitioner despite the same allegations being pressed before it via multiple affidavits filed by the Punjab government. The present petition, therefore, raises important questions of law and principle concerning abuse of criminal process, misuse of remand powers, and the right to fair investigation and liberty, it stated. Majithia prayed for appropriate reliefs, including quashing of the illegal remand order and appropriate directions to prevent further "abuse" of process. In the fresh FIR registered against Majithia, the VB claimed that preliminary investigations revealed that more than ₹ 540 crore of "drug money" has been laundered through several ways and it was allegedly facilitated by Majithia. This FIR against Majithia stems from an ongoing investigation being conducted by a Punjab Police special investigation team into the 2021 drug case. In 2021, Majithia was booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The action was taken on the basis of a 2018 report of the anti-drug Special Task Force. Majithia spent more than five months in Patiala jail and walked out of prison in August 2022 after the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted him bail. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Indian Express
8 hours ago
- Indian Express
Punjab and Haryana HC to hear Akali leader Bikram Singh Majithia's plea challenging ‘illegal arrest, remand' in vigilance case tomorrow
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Thursday fixed July 4 for hearing a petition filed by Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader and former Punjab minister Bikram Singh Majithia, challenging his recent arrest and subsequent police remand in a vigilance case. The matter came up before Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, who adjourned the hearing by a day to allow Majithia's counsel to place on record the latest remand orders issued in the case. Majithia moved the high court seeking relief against what he terms his 'illegal arrest and remand' following an FIR registered by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau on June 25 under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In his petition, Majithia has alleged that the FIR is a product of 'political witch-hunting and vendetta' aimed at maligning him, adding that he has been a vocal critic and political opponent of the ruling regime. The petition claims that Majithia was picked up from his Amritsar residence around 9 am on June 25 and kept in custody for over two hours before his formal arrest at 11.20 am, in violation of his constitutional and statutory rights. Citing video evidence and the remand order issued the next day, the plea contends that this delay amounts to illegal detention and a breach of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (formerly Section 167 CrPC). The petition also challenges the remand order passed by the Judicial Magistrate on June 26, calling it 'manifestly perverse and non-speaking.' It alleges that the Magistrate failed to comply with mandatory requirements laid out in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, particularly Volume III, Chapter 11-B, which mandate judicial satisfaction, scrutiny of the case diary, and clear reasons for granting police custody. Majithia's lawyers argue that there is no indication in the order that the Magistrate applied his mind or considered a previous Supreme Court order dated March 4, 2025. In that order, the apex court had denied the Punjab government's request for custodial interrogation and had instead directed Majithia to cooperate with the Special Investigation Team, which, according to the petition, he fully complied with. Despite this, the state sought a fresh remand by allegedly concealing facts and misrepresenting urgency before the magistrate. The petition argues that the remand was intended to extract a confession in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Calling the arrest and remand a 'gross violation' of Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Constitution, the petition raises broader legal questions around the alleged misuse of criminal procedure, abuse of remand powers, and the right to liberty and fair investigation. Majithia is seeking quashing of the remand order and appropriate directions to prevent what he terms further abuse of process. The petition has been filed through advocates Sartej Singh Narula, Damanbir Singh Sobti, Arshdeep Singh Cheema, Arshdeep Singh Kler, and Sultan Singh Sangha.
Hans India
9 hours ago
- Hans India
Govt embarrassed as CAT revokes IPS officer's suspension
Bengaluru: In a significant setback to the Karnataka state government, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on Tuesday revoked the suspension of IPS officer Vikas Kumar Vikash, who was among the six police officials suspended in connection with the stampede near M. Chinnaswamy Stadium during RCB's IPL victory celebration last month. The stampede, which occurred on June 4, led to the tragic death of 11 individuals and left over 60 injured. Following public outrage and criticism over the failure to manage the crowd, the government had ordered a magistrate-level inquiry and suspended several officials, including then Additional Commissioner of Police (East Division), Vikas Kumar, and then Bengaluru City Police Commissioner B. Dayananda. Challenging his suspension, Vikas Kumar had approached CAT. A bench comprising Justices B.K. Srivatsava and Santosh Mehra had reserved its order on June 24 and delivered its ruling today, directing the state to revoke the suspension and reinstate the officer. The tribunal also ruled that Vikas Kumar is entitled to all service-related benefits. Senior advocate Dhyan Chinappa, representing Vikas Kumar, argued that the suspension violated service rules and lacked procedural backing. With this decision, focus now shifts to similar cases involving other suspended officers, including Dayananda and DCP H.T. Shekhar, which are currently under CAT review and may also see relief soon. The suspensions were executed under All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 for the IPS officers and Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 for the ACP and Police CAT's order exposing legal and procedural lapses in the government's handling of the disciplinary action, the episode has become a source of political embarrassment. It also raises questions about accountability mechanisms and the fairness of immediate punitive measures following high-profile public incidents. However, on Wednesday the government approached the High Court challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order reinstating Additional Commissioner of Police Vikash Kumar Vikash, who was suspended following the tragic stampede at Chinnaswamy Stadium here last month, which claimed 11 lives and injured 56 others. It contended that the CAT overstepped its jurisdiction by making determinations on the incident without the benefit of a full-fledged departmental inquiry. It termed the Tribunal's reasoning as 'perverse' and inconsistent with established legal principles concerning suspension.
