The Supreme Court on Tuesday modified an Allahabad High Court Full Bench judgment that had directed the reinstatement of six probationary judicial officers discharged from service following a 2014 altercation among trainee judges, holding that the Allahabad High Court’s Full Court should instead reconsider whether they had satisfactorily completed their probation after evaluating their entire service record.
The appeals arose from a Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had held that the discharge orders were punitive and stigmatic, observing that they were founded on allegations arising from a dinner-party altercation rather than an overall assessment of the officers’ performance during probation. The High Court had consequently directed their reinstatement, holding that the principles of natural justice ought to have been followed before terminating their services.
Before the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court contended that the Full Bench had erroneously read Rule 25 (confirmation) into Rule 24 (discharge during probation) of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, thereby curtailing the High Court’s administrative authority to discharge unsuitable probationers. It argued that the impugned discharge orders were simpliciter and did not cast any stigma.
The Bench, however, observed that while the High Court was entitled to assess a probationer’s suitability, such satisfaction could not be based solely on the Registrar’s report relating to the altercation.
“
“Let there be a holistic decision on all materials. Because you cannot deny that when the satisfaction is to be recorded, this report cannot be the only material. The report cannot be the only material. One of the many materials.”
Dictating its order, the Supreme Court held that the appropriate course would be to permit the Allahabad High Court’s Full Court, on its administrative side, to undertake a fresh evaluation of whether the respondents had successfully completed probation by considering the entire material that ought to have been taken into account at the relevant time.
“
“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the object and spirit of Rule 24 and 25… we are satisfied that the Full Court on the administrative side ought to be accorded liberty to reconsider the issue of completion of probation… The impugned judgment of the High Court is modified to that extent. The Full Court may, on the basis of the entire material which was relevant to be considered for the purpose of retention of the probationary service, take an appropriate decision.”
The Court further clarified that any claim for reinstatement would depend upon the outcome of the Full Court’s fresh decision and requested the Allahabad High Court to resolve the issue expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.