The Supreme Court overturned the discharge of a judicial probationer, holding that termination based on alleged misconduct (like simultaneous degrees or non-disclosure of past employment after resignation) without a proper inquiry and opportunity to be heard is stigmatic and punitive, violating principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that minor omissions after resignation are not grounds for discharge, especially when the probationer completed training successfully
Facts Of The Case:
Pinky Meena, holding multiple degrees including LL.B. and LL.M., was a Grade-II Teacher in the Rajasthan Education Department from 2014. She applied for the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate post following an advertisement on November 18, 2017. After selection, she was appointed on February 11, 2019, and joined as a trainee RJS on March 6, 2019, completing her training successfully on March 7, 2020.A show cause notice was issued to her on February 17, 2020, based on complaints. The allegations included: simultaneously obtaining LL.B. and B.Ed degrees, pursuing LL.M. while serving as a teacher and fraudulently showing attendance, concealing her government employment in the RJS interview checklist, not obtaining an NOC from the Education Department for the RJS examination, and concealing her selection from both the High Court and Education Department. Pinky Meena submitted her resignation from the teacher post on October 25, 2018, which was accepted on December 28, 2018, prior to her interview on November 2, 2018. An inquiry was held, and the Full Court concluded not to continue her service as a probationer, leading to a discharge order on May 29, 2020. Her writ petition against the discharge was dismissed by the High Court, leading to the current appeal
Procedural History:
The case originated from a show cause notice issued to the appellant, Pinky Meena, on February 17, 2020, followed by a discharge order dated May 29, 2020, issued by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. This discharge occurred after an inquiry report was submitted to the Full Court of the High Court, which then decided not to continue her service as a probationer. Aggrieved by the discharge order, the appellant filed a writ petition (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6752 of 2020) before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, which was subsequently dismissed on August 24, 2023. The present appeal, Civil Appeal No. 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23529 of 2023), was filed before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s dismissal. The Supreme Court granted leave in the matter. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal, quashing the show cause notice and discharge order, and ordering reinstatement with consequential benefits
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Rules Customs Duty Drawback Circular Has Retrospective Effect
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the alleged misconducts regarding simultaneous degrees and LL.M. pursuit occurred prior to the appellant becoming a Judicial Officer and were not acted upon by her previous employer. The Court found her non-disclosure of past government service not to be a material irregularity, as she had resigned before her interview. Characterizing it as a minor omission, the Court deemed her discharge disproportionate “capital punishment”. Emphasizing her successful training and the absence of unsatisfactory performance, the Court concluded the discharge was stigmatic and punitive, violating natural justice due to the inquiry’s conduct. The Court underscored the importance of diversity in the judiciary and the appellant’s contribution to the system.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the show cause notice dated February 17, 2020, and the discharge order dated May 29, 2020. The appellant, Pinky Meena, is entitled to immediate reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. These benefits include the fixation of seniority as per the merit list in the examination, notional fixation of pay, but explicitly exclude back wages. Furthermore, the respondent (High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan) is directed to treat the appellant as having successfully completed her probation period and as a confirmed employee. Any pending applications in the matter are also disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: PINKY MEENA VERSUS THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR & ANR. Citation: 2025 INSC 756 Civil Appeal No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 Date of Judgement: May 22, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: B.V. Nagarathna, and Satish Chandra Sharma,
Download The Judgement Here