Pardeep Rai Azad vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Another

Hemant Gupta, J.—Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 23.11.1998 (Annexure P-15), whereby the services of the petitioner were dispensed with during the probation period, consequent to recording of adverse remarks in the annual confidential report for the years 1997-98 by the then Administrative Judge. The petitioner joined as Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 15th February, 1996. He was granted satisfactory report for the year 1996-97, but in the year 1997-98, the then Administrative Judge has recorded the following remarks:

The said remarks along with inspection note in respect of writing of judgments or as a matter of fact non-writing of the judgments was also communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner has made representation Annexure P-7 to the then Administrative Judge. The Administrative Judge rejected the representation so submitted by the petitioner and information to this effect was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 07.10.1998 (Annexure P-12). The petitioner submitted another representation (Annexure P-14) as an appeal to the Hon''ble the Chief Justice,. The said representation was again declined on 12.01.1999 (Annexure P-14/A). Since the probation period was not considered to be satisfactory, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with by the State Government on 23.11.1998 vide order dated 23.11.1998 (Annexure P-15).

In the written statement, it has been pointed out that the report for the year 1996-97 was ''Satisfactory-B'', whereas, in the annual confidential report for the year 1997-98 upto 19.12.1997 in column No. 3 i.e. ''Are his judgments & orders well written and clearly expressed'' the remark was ''Needs improvement''. The Administrative Judge has also recorded an inspection note for the period 19.12.1997 to 31.03.1998 apart from the remarks reproduced above. Such remarks led to dispensation of service of petitioner during the probation period. Written statement also discloses the note given by the then Administrative Judge, regarding the disposal of cases by the petitioner during six months preceding his transfer while considering the representation filed. It has been found that disposal was mostly below the minimum prescribed norms. It finds mention that on 04.05.1998, he has pronounced an order without dictating and even when the Bar had struck work.

The tests for dispensing the services of a Judicial Officer during the probation period have come for consideration in recent judgement reported as Rajesh Kohli Vs. High Court of J. and K. and Another, . The Court held to the following:

During the period of probation an employee remains under watch and his service and his conduct is under scrutiny. Around the time of completion of the probationary period, an assessment is made of his work and conduct during the period of probation and on such assessment a decision is taken as to whether or not his service is satisfactory and also whether or not on the basis of his service and track record his service should be confirmed or extended for further scrutiny of his service if such extension is permissible or whether his service should be dispensed with and terminated. The services rendered by a judicial officer during probation are assessed not solely on the basis of judicial performance, but also on the probity as to how one has conducted himself.

XXXX

In our considered opinion, none of the aforesaid two orders could be said to be a stigmatic order as no stigma is attached. Of course, the aforesaid letters were issued in view of the resolution of the Full Court meeting where the Full Court of the High Court held that the service of the petitioner is unsatisfactory. Whether or not the probation period could be or should be extended or his service should be confirmed is required to be considered by the Full Court of the High Court and while doing so necessarily the service records of the petitioner are required to be considered and if from the service records it is disclosed that the service of the petitioner is not satisfactory it is open for the respondents to record such satisfaction regarding his unsatisfactory service and even mentioning the same in the order would not amount to casting any aspersion on the petitioner nor could it be said that stating in the order that his service is unsatisfactory amounts to a stigmatic order.

This position is no longer res integra and it is well settled that even if an order of termination refers to unsatisfactory service of the person concerned, the same cannot be said to be stigmatic. In Pavanendra Narayan Verma Vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and anr, this Court has explained at length the tests that would apply to determine if an order terminating the services of a probationer is stigmatic. On the facts of that case it was held that the opinion expressed in the termination order that the probationer''s "work and conduct has not been found satisfactory" was not ex facie stigmatic and in such circumstances the question of having to comply with the principles of natural justice does not arise.

XXXX

In State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh, (2002) 9 SCC 636 this Court at paras 4 & 5 held as follows:

In our view, when a probationer is discharged during the period of probation and if for the purpose of discharge, a particular assessment of his work is to be made, and the authorities referred to such an assessment of his work, while passing the order of discharge, that cannot be held to amount to stigma.

The other sentence in the impugned order is, that the performance of the officer on the whole was ''not satisfactory''. Even that does not amount to any stigma.

In the present case, the order of termination is a fallout of his unsatisfactory service adjudged on the basis of his overall performance and the manner in which he conducted himself. Such satisfaction even if recorded that his service is unsatisfactory would not make the order stigmatic or punitive as sought to be submitted by the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid resolution, the matter was referred to the State Government for issuing necessary orders.

XXXX

Upright and honest judicial officers are needed not only to bolster the image of the judiciary in the eyes of the litigants, but also to sustain the culture of integrity, virtue and ethics among Judges. The public''s perception of the judiciary matters just as much as its role in dispute resolution. The credibility of the entire judiciary is often undermined by isolated acts of transgression by a few members of the Bench, and therefore it is imperative to maintain a high benchmark of honesty, accountability and good conduct.

Keeping in view the above said judgement, the remarks recorded have been rightly made basis for dispensation of his service. We do not find any error in the action taken against the petitioner. Civil writ petition stands dismissed.