Judgment · High Court

Judgment

11 S.C.R. 395 REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR. v. JAYSHREE CHAMANLAL BUDDHBHATTI (Civil Appeal No. 9346 of 2013) # OCTOBER 22, 2013 [H.L. GOKHALE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Service Law: Judicial service - Subordinate judicial officer - A B c Termination of service - During probation period - Without affording opportunity of hearing - Termination order set aside by High Court on the ground that it was in breach of Art. 311 of the Constitution - Held: If the inquiry is conducted to 0 assess the suitability of the probationer, it cannot be faulted - But if in the course of inquiry any a/legations are made against the probationer, which results into a stigma, the probationer ought to be afforded protection u!Art. 311(2) - In the present case no opportunity was afforded to the officer - The facts of the case, ·also do not establish her unsuitability E to the post - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 311(2). Judiciary - Subordinate judiciary - Protection of - It is duty of the High Court to protect judicial officers against unjustified allegations and to see that hostile work F environment for junior judicial officers is eliminated, in order to encourage them to put in good judicial work without fear or favour. The respondent, obtained a high rank in the selection G for judicial service. She was given an independent posting as a Civil Judge, Junior Division. During her probation, discreet inquiry was conducted and thereafter preliminary inquiry was conducted. On the basis of the 395 H 396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A report of the preliminary inquiry, the services of the respondent were terminated. She challenged the termination order by filing writ petition. The· High Court allowed the petition and set aside the termination order and directed her reinstatement with back wages, on the B ground that the termination was in breach of Article 311 of the Constitution, inasmuch as she was not informed of the charges against her, nor was she given the opportunity of being heard in respect thereof. Hence the present appeal. c The question for consideration was whether the present case was a case of termination simplicitor of the services of a probationer on account of her unsuitability for the post that she was holding, or whether it was a termination of her services after holding an inquiry D behind her back and without giving her an opportunity to defend. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F E HELD: 1.1. If a finding against a probationer is arrived at behind his back on the basis of the inquiry conducted into the allegations made against him, and if the same formed the foundation of the order of discharge, the same would be bad and liable to be set aside. If it is a case of deciding the suitability of a probationer, and for that limited purpose any inquiry is conducted, the same cannot be faulted as such. However, if during the course of such an inquiry any allegations are made against the person concerned, which result into a stigma, he ought to be afforded the minimum protection which is G contemplated under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India even though he may be a probationer. The protection is very limited viz. to inform the person concerned about the charges against him, and to give him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. [Paras 27 H and 28] [421-F-G; 422-B-C] REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT v. JAYSHREE CHAMANLAL BUDDHBHATTI 397

1.2. The facts of the present case indicate that apart A from the fact that no opportunity was afforded to the respondent, even the material placed on record did not establish any such aspect which would lead to a conclusion of unsuitability. The disposal of the respondent was very good, and the complaints by the subordinate staff were clearly motivated. There was no involvement of the respondent in the suicide by the wife of another judicial officer, and all that the High Court administration could lay hand on was the telephonic conversations which the respondent had with the judicial c officer. The inference of unsuitability drawn by the High Court administration was therefore totally uncalled for. The impugned judgment setting aside the termination order issued on the ground of unsuitability is, therefore, fully justified. [Para 31] [424-C-F] B D

1.3. High Court administration had first conducted a discreet inquiry against the respondent, and thereafter another inquiry called as preliminary inquiry. The initial discreet inquiry was conducted by the then District Judge, whereas the subsequent inquiry, was conducted E by the then Registrar (Vigilance). The Registrar (Vigilance) was earlier the District Judge, to whom the respondent had made initial complaints about the behaviour of her subordinate staff that they were not working properly, and he had not taken any action on those complaints. F Instead, he made certain adverse remarks on the personal characteristics of the respondent, with respect to politeness and courtesy that it required improvement. Therefore, in view of his association with the controversy at an earlier stage as the District Judge, the minimum that G was expected of him was to recuse himself from the preliminary inquiry. [Para 16] [412-G-H; 413-A-C]

1.4. It is also material to note that during the preliminary inquiry, the Registrar (Vigilance) did not call H 398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R. A those persons to give evidence who had given statements in favour of the respondent during the discreet inquiry. This include,d her peon and senior staff ' members. The staff member of the respondent who did not get along with the respondent, had also given a B statement in support of her during the course of the discreet inquiry. Not less than 38 advocates had given a statement in her favour, and pointed out that her performance was in fact good, and also that there were no behavioral problems with respect to her functioning. c If this information was available to the Registrar (Vigilance), through the report of the discreet inquiry, which was conducted by the then District Judge, it was expected of him to verify that material by calling the persons concerned, and recording their statements. The impugned judgment has noted this one-sided approach of the Registrar (Vigilance), and called it as biased. [Para 16) [413-C-G) 0

1.5. The respondent is held to have completed her probation satisfactorily. The appellants are directed to E reinstate the respondent in her service with continuity and all consequential benefits. She will be entitled to her seniority as if she wa~ never terminated from her service. She will be entitled to the backwages. However, the backwages payable to her are restricted to the period F subsequent to the decision of the High Court dated 15.5.2009. She will be given a fitment in salary on the basis of her continuity in services, and the backwages will be calculated and paid accordingly. [Para 35) [426-E-G] G