Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition challenging a Probationary Judicial Officer’s discharge under Rule 11(c) of the M.P. Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (1994 Rules) for unsatisfactory performance allegedly arising from various allegations and complaints including instituting Contempt of Court proceedings against Bar members, taking their apologies, having them touch their ears and do sit-ups for apology, same treatment being given to Police personnel appearing in his Court, etc., a Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait CJ., and Vivek Jain,* J., dismissed the petition and held that the discharge was not punitive and no procedural unfairness occurred. The Court held that the High Court, as employer, is within its authority under Rule 11(c) of the 1994 Rules to assess the petitioner’s overall suitability and found him unfit for confirmation.
“The petitioner has not at all been punished nor the discharge order, from any angle, is punitive in nature.”
Factual Matrix of Probationary Judicial Officer’s discharge Case
In the instant matter, the petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge, Junior Division, in the M.P. Judicial Services on 12-03-2019 and served on probation. On 05-09-2024, the State Government issued an order discharging him from service under Rule 11(c) of the 1994 Rules, on the recommendation of the Administrative Committee of the High Court dated 08-08-2024, as ratified by the Full Court on 20-08-2024, on the ground that the petitioner has not satisfactorily and successfully completed his probation.
The petitioner challenged the impugned order of discharge and contended that his discharge is not a simple termination but a punitive one, masked as “discharge simpliciter,” arising from various allegations and complaints against him.
Moot Point
- Whether the discharge of the petitioner from service was a punitive termination camouflaged as a discharge simpliciter?
- Whether principles of natural justice violated for not holding a formal enquiry?
-
Whether the petitioner’s continuation beyond three years on probation amounts to deemed confirmation?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner argued that the order of discharge was based on serious misconduct allegations including misbehavior with advocates, initiating and dropping contempt proceedings against Bar Association members and police personnel, chasing and verbally abusing court staff, including women, and threatening to slap them and imposing illegal punishments including a two-month sentence and a fine on a peon. The petitioner relied on documents obtained through RTI and contended that these complaints formed the basis of his termination. It was submitted that since discharge order was stigmatic and punitive, therefore, required a regular inquiry. It was further contended that since the petitioner had served for more than three years, he stood confirmed by default, especially as no extension of probation was communicated to him.
However, the respondents contended that the petitioner was merely a probationer and that he had not satisfactorily completed probation. It was argued that the discharge order was not founded on allegations of misconduct, and therefore no inquiry was required. It was contended that the adverse material only aided the Administrative Committee and Full Court in forming their satisfaction that the petitioner was unsuitable. It was lastly contended that the discharge order did not cast any stigma or disqualify the petitioner for future appointments.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted that the resolutions of the Administrative Committee and the Full Court, as well as the discharge order, do not contain any allegations or findings of misconduct, but merely indicate that the petitioner “did not utilize his probation period successfully and satisfactorily” thereby not reflecting any finding of guilt but a reliance solely based on misconduct.
“Taking a punitive action for misconduct is one thing and arriving at a satisfaction that whether the officer would shape into a suitable officer or not, on the basis of performance during probation period is altogether different thing.”
The Court stated that the dismissal order stated that the petitioner was “unable to satisfactorily and successfully complete the probation period,” a non-stigmatic formulation. The Court emphasised that “the petitioner cannot argue that the pendency of complaints against him and investigation into the said complaints should have been suppressed from the Administrative Committee or the Full Court…”
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s ACRs (Annual Confidential Reports) showed inconsistent performance, with several years rated as “C” (Good) or “D” (Average), with comments indicating poor judgment quality, lack of civil case disposal, and excessive focus on extraneous matters. The Court asserted that “it is settled in law that for the purpose of assessing the general suitability of an officer to hold the post, even uncommunicated entries can be considered.”
The Court extensively referred to the Supreme Court’s precedents on probationary service and discharge simpliciter, including SBI v. Palak Modi, (2013) 3 SCC 607, Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGIMS, (2002) 1 SCC 520, State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh (2023) 9 SCC 150, Rajesh Kohli v. High Court of J&K (2010) 12 SCC 783 and High Court of M.P. v. Satya Narayan Jhavar, (2001) 7 SCC 161 and held that “once no foundation of misconduct is alleged in the discharge order and the order is discharged simpliciter, then it cannot be inferred that the discharge is punitive.”
The Court relied on Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 55 and clarified that recruitment advertisement conditions, such as one-month notice, cannot override statutory rules.
On probation extension beyond three years, the Court rejected the petitioner’s argument for deemed confirmation and held that deemed confirmation arises only if rules or appointment orders expressly so provide.
Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Probationary Judicial Officer’s discharge on account of unsuitability for the post. The Court held that —
- The discharge is not punitive but is a termination simpliciter based on unsatisfactory completion of probation.
- No enquiry is necessary as there is no stigma or foundation of misconduct.
- The petitioner is not entitled to deemed confirmation as Rule 11(d) of the 1994 Rules required both successful completion of probation and suitability certification from the High Court.
-
The clause in the recruitment advertisement about one month’s notice cannot override the statutory rules.
[Kaustubh Khera v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 4004, Decided on 07-05-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Vivek Jain
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Aditya Adhikari, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Divya Pal, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
