Supreme Court Reinstates Tribal Woman Judge | Discharge Termed Stigmatic And Unjust | “No Purpose Served By Throwing Her Out”
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma quashed the discharge of a probationary Civil Judge, ordering reinstatement with consequential benefits while declaring the discharge based on a minor omission as legally untenable. The Court held that "the appellant has been awarded capital punishment for a minor irregularity (omission)," setting aside the show cause notice dated 17.02.2020 and the discharge order dated 29.05.2020 issued by the Rajasthan High Court.
The Court directed that the appellant be reinstated forthwith and treated as having successfully completed her probation, with her seniority fixed as per merit and notional pay determined, though back wages were denied. The discharge, having arisen from a show cause notice and inquiry deemed to have violated principles of natural justice, was nullified in toto. The apex court's direction affirms procedural fairness and proportionality in service termination, especially in the context of allegations not related to judicial service.
The appellant, possessing degrees in Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Education, Bachelor of Laws, and Masters in Law, began her government career as Teacher Grade-II in the Rajasthan Education Department on 30.12.2014. On 18.11.2017, the Rajasthan High Court issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate. The appellant applied, was selected, and appointed on 11.02.2019. She joined the Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS) as a trainee on 06.03.2019 and completed training on 07.03.2020.
Initially posted under Awaiting Posting Order (APO) on 06.03.2020, her headquarters were shifted from Jodhpur to Jaipur Metro by order dated 23.03.2020. Meanwhile, a show cause notice dated 17.02.2020 was issued to her under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, seeking explanations on five alleged irregularities:
- Obtaining LL.B. and B.Ed degrees in the same academic year.
- Pursuing an LL.M. while employed as a government teacher.
- Concealing government employment in the RJS interview checklist.
- Appearing for the RJS exam without obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC).
- Concealing her judicial selection from the Education Department and joining service post-resignation on medical grounds.
Her explanations submitted on 02.03.2020 contested each count. She denied simultaneous attendance in LL.B. and B.Ed courses, claiming compliance with university ordinances. Regarding LL.M., she asserted that regular attendance was not required. On employment concealment, she cited lack of relevant fields in the interview checklist and that her resignation dated 25.10.2018 preceded checklist submission on 02.11.2018. She argued that RJS Rules did not mandate prior employer approval and that she was not a government servant when she joined RJS.
Despite her explanations, an inquiry report prepared by the Registrar (Vigilance) concluded against her. The Full Court resolved not to continue her in service, citing lack of confirmation and pending probation. The discharge order dated 29.05.2020 followed. The appellant challenged this before the Rajasthan High Court, which dismissed the writ petition, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The appellant’s counsel argued that all alleged irregularities pertained to her tenure in the Education Department, not during her probation in judicial service. The Education Department had taken no action, and hence these could not be grounds for discharge. It was stressed that she completed training without blemish, was no longer a government servant when she applied, and that the inquiry process lacked adherence to natural justice principles: no presenting officer, no effective hearing, and non-supply of the inquiry report.
The respondents contended that pursuing B.Ed and LL. B simultaneously contravened Ordinances 168-A and 168-B of Rajasthan University, and that her LL.M., pursued as a regular student while employed, was without departmental permission. They claimed her application lacked disclosure of prior government employment, which constituted misconduct. They relied on Rules 44 to 46 and Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, arguing that she was unfit for confirmation.
The Court recorded that "misconduct, if any, in respect of obtaining LL.B. and B.Ed degree simultaneously relates to the service period prior to being a Judicial Officer." Similarly, for the LL.M. degree, she was not in judicial service at that time.
On alleged concealment of prior employment, the Court noted: "the appellant submitted resignation on 25.10.2018... on the date of interview i.e., 02.11.2018, she was no longer a government servant... there is certainly an omission... but it is not a material irregularity or a serious misconduct."
Further, the Court observed: "non-disclosure of past government service cannot be a ground for discharging the appellant... especially when she has successfully completed her training without any blemish." The Court stated that the appellant suffered from tuberculosis during this period, affecting her ability to respond and participate fully.
Regarding the NOC, the Court stated: "a reasonable explanation has rightly been furnished... when she appeared for the interview and when the result was declared, she had submitted her resignation."
In evaluating Rules 44 to 46, the Court noted: "It is nobody’s case that the performance of the appellant during the probationary period was unsatisfactory. In fact, she has successfully completed her training with flying colours."
On Rule 14 concerning employment by improper means, the Court remarked: "In the present case, at the best, it can be held that there was an omission... the appellant has been awarded capital punishment for a minor irregularity (omission)."
The Court recorded that "if a probationer is terminated from service owing to a misconduct as a punishment, the termination would cause a stigma... such a case is stigmatic as it is a termination not simpliciter."
"Termination based on remarks pertaining to duties even without a finding of misconduct... will be by way of punishment... because such remarks or assessment would be stigmatic."
Further, the Court noted the procedural violation: "the order discharging the appellant from service violates principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not provided an opportunity to be heard during the enquiry that was required to be conducted."
Referring to Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court noted: "If a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct... without a proper enquiry... it may... amount to removal from service within the meaning of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution."
On broader judicial diversity, the Court stated: "greater representation of women in the judiciary... would greatly improve the overall quality of judicial decision making." It continued: "The appellant has shown great perseverance by fighting societal stigmas and gaining a rich education that will ultimately benefit the judicial system and the democratic project."
The Court allowed the appeal and issued specific directions:
"The impugned show cause notice as well as the order of discharge deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside."
"The appeal is allowed and the show cause notice dated 17.02.2020 and the discharge order dated 29.05.2020 are quashed."
"The appellant shall be entitled to reinstatement in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, including, fixation of seniority as per the merit list in the examination in question, notional fixation of pay, except back wages."
"It is further clarified that the respondent shall treat the appellant as to have successfully completed her probation period and the appellant shall be treated as a confirmed employee."
Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mayank Jain, Advocate; Mr. Parmatma Singh, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Madhur Jain, Advocate; Ms. Aakriti Dhawan, Advocate; Mr. Arpit Goel, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Mukul Kumar, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Anupriya Srivastava, Advocate; Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advocate-on-Record
Case Title: Pinky Meena v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 756
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ____ of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23529 of 2023]
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
[Read/Download order]
