Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 815 - SC - Indian LawsTermination Order - Action against the Judicial officer by the High Court - Misconduct - Charge of corruption - seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits and seniority - High Court vehemently contended that the termination order could not be labelled as punitive or arbitrary or having been passed without sufficient material - HELD THAT:- The entire objective of probation is to provide the employer an opportunity to evaluate the probationer’s performance and test his suitability for a particular post. Such an exercise is a necessary part of the process of recruitment, and must not be treated lightly. Written tests and interviews are only attempts to predict a candidate’s possibility of success at a particular job. The true test of suitability is actual performance of duties which can only be applied after the candidate joins and starts working. Probationers have no indefeasible right to continue in employment until confirmed, and they can be relieved by the competent authority if found unsuitable. Its only in a very limited category of cases that such probationers can seek protection under the principles of natural justice, say when they are ‘removed’ in a manner which prejudices their future prospects in alternate fields or casts aspersions on their character or violates their constitutional rights. There is nothing on record in the present case to infer that the motivation behind the removal was any allegation. Instead, it was routine confirmation exercise. The evaluation of services rendered during the probationary period was made at the end of the first respondent’s tenure, along with 92 others. Vigilance reports were called not just for the Respondent No. 1 petitioner, but also for at least ten other candidates - It is thus clear that the object was not to verify whether the allegations against the first respondent had been proved or not, but merely to ascertain whether there were sufficient reasons or a possible cloud on his suitability, given the higher standard of probity expected of a judge. Since Respondent No.1 has failed to establish that the High Court intended or has actually punished him for any defined misconduct, it stands crystallized that the object of the High Court on the administrative side was to verify the suitability and not enquire into the allegations against the first respondent. Independently also, it is not found that the foundation was the allegations but it was based upon a holistic assessment of the respondent’s service record. Even taking an effects based approach, we do not feel that the order of non confirmation or the preceding circumstances would prejudice the respondent, meriting a higher procedural requirement. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|