The Supreme Court has directed the Allahabad High Court’s Full Court to conduct a fresh assessment of whether six probationary judicial officers, who were terminated following a 2014 altercation, satisfactorily completed their probation.
Modifying an earlier verdict by a Full Bench of the High Court that had ordered the immediate reinstatement of the officers, the apex court ruled that any claim to reinstatement will depend on the outcome of this new administrative evaluation. The top court requested that the High Court resolve the matter expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.
Scope of Administrative Evaluation
In its decision, the Supreme Court stated that while the High Court holds the authority to determine a probationer’s suitability, that evaluation cannot rely exclusively on a Registrar’s report regarding the 2014 incident. Instead, the Full Court, functioning on its administrative side, must review the entire service record and all relevant material from the period in question under Rules 24 and 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules.
The apex court noted that a holistic decision requires evaluating all performance materials available at the time, rather than basing a discharge decision solely on a single report.
Arguments over Administrative Authority
The ruling comes after the Allahabad High Court appealed against its own Full Bench judgment. In its submissions, the High Court argued that the Full Bench had misconstrued the framework governing judicial probation by reading Rule 25, which governs confirmation, into Rule 24, which covers discharge during probation.
The High Court argued that this interpretation unduly restricted its administrative power to remove unsuitable trainees. It further maintained that the initial discharge orders were simple administrative terminations that did not impose any stigma on the officers.
Origins of the Dispute
The case stems from a 2014 altercation involving trainee judges at a dinner party, after which the six probationary officers were discharged from service.
The High Court’s Full Bench had previously set aside those discharge orders, concluding that they were punitive and stigmatic because they were based on allegations surrounding the dinner-party incident rather than an overall appraisal of the officers’ performance. That Bench had mandated their reinstatement on the grounds that the principles of natural justice were not observed prior to termination.
