The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Additional District Judge challenging the termination of his services during his probation period. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan, ruled that the termination order was “simpliciter” in nature, founded on the officer’s overall unsuitability, and was neither punitive nor stigmatic.
Background of the Case
The Petitioner, Aman Pratap Singh, was appointed to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) on probation for two years via a notification dated April 28, 2023. He assumed charge as Additional District Judge-01, South-West District, Dwarka, on September 1, 2023.
The controversy arose following an incident on September 6, 2024. According to the Petitioner, a litigant recorded a video of court proceedings, leading to an altercation where the Petitioner raised his voice to maintain decorum. This video subsequently went viral on social media with captions suggesting the judge was intoxicated. The Petitioner alleged that following this, the Chief Justice took suo moto cognizance, an inquiry team searched his chambers, and a Full Court meeting on September 13, 2024, decided to dispense with his services.
The Respondent (Government of NCT of Delhi and Delhi High Court) maintained that the termination was not a consequence of the viral video. They argued that the Petitioner’s Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2023 had already been recorded by the Inspecting Judges’ Committee on August 29, 2024—prior to the video incident—grading his judgments as “Below Average” and noting issues with his behavior.
Submissions of the Parties
Representing the Petitioner, Senior Advocate Arvind Sangwan argued that the “viral video” was the “determinative and proximate cause” for the removal. He contended that the action, though styled as a termination of a probationer, was punitive in substance. He argued that conducting a fact-finding inquiry behind the Petitioner’s back and terminating him without a hearing violated the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgments in V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab and Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary v. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, arguing that the veil must be lifted to see the true punitive nature of the order.
Per contra, Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao, appearing for the Delhi High Court, submitted that the termination was strictly in accordance with Rule 14 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, which permits termination of a probationer without assigning reasons. He highlighted that the Inspecting Judges’ Committee had already noted on August 29, 2024, that the officer was “extremely rude to advocates” and needed to improve his behavior. It was argued that the Full Court assessed the Petitioner’s overall suitability based on his service record and complaints, finding him unsuitable for retention.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Bench examined whether the termination was punitive (requiring a formal inquiry) or a termination simpliciter (administrative discharge). The Court reiterated the settled legal position that a probationer has no right to hold the post and can be discharged for general unsuitability.
The Court applied the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P., distinguishing between the “motive” and the “foundation” of a termination order.
The Court observed:
“The limited fact-finding said to have followed the viral video incident, lacked the essential attributes of a formal inquiry and not culminated in recorded conclusions, and, therefore, cannot be elevated to the status of the foundation of the action so as to attract the safeguards of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.”
The Bench placed significant weight on the fact that the adverse ACR pre-dated the viral video incident. The judgment noted:
“Notably, the Petitioner was appointed to the DHJS as a probationer… and was, therefore, squarely governed by Rule 14 of the Rules of 1970… Secondly, it is also of significance that even prior to the viral circulation of the video clip dated 06.09.2024, the Petitioner’s ACR for the year 2023 had already been recorded by the Inspecting Judges’ Committee on 29.08.2024.”
The Court distinguished the present case from V.P. Ahuja, noting that the termination order contained no stigmatic language. It further held that the decision was an “institutional assessment” of the probationer’s unfitness.
“The termination order does not contain any stigmatic language or refer to any finding of guilt; it is explicitly casted as a termination during probation. The contemporaneous record reveals that the ACR with adverse remarks on work and behaviour, along with complaints placed before the Full Court, formed the substratum of its institutional opinion regarding the non-suitability.”
Conclusion and Decision
The High Court concluded that the termination was a lawful exercise of power under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1970. The Court held that the action was based on the Petitioner’s overall performance and service record, not on established misconduct.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Bench held:
“The termination, being simpliciter in nature, is neither punitive nor stigmatic, and does not attract the safeguards of Article 311(2) of the Constitution or the principles of natural justice applicable to disciplinary proceedings.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Aman Pratap Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
- Case Number: W.P. (C) 15486/2024
- Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan
- Citation: 2026:DHC:994-DB
