'Repeated Acts Of Insubordination During Probation Sets Bad Example For Judicial Officers': High Court Upholds Expulsion Of Punjab Judge

The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the expulsion of a Punjab Civil Judge (Junior Division), observing that, an officer who repeatedly committed acts of insubordination during probation would continue after it and he is setting a bad example for other Judicial Officers.

The service of the then judge, Abhinav Kiran Sekhon was dispensed with, being "unsatisfactory", under Rule 7 (2) of Part-D of Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951(Rules). The judge was found to have fixed only one case on the day he was expecting his leave. He was also accused of concealing his earlier visits abroad when asked by the Administrative Judge for granting leave.

He also went abroad repeatedly even before his ex-India leave was confirmed. In a Full Court meeting convened in 2020 pursuant to an order of the Chief Justice, the report of the Vigilance and Disciplinary Committee was accepted and the service of the officer was decided to be “dispensed with".

A bench of Acting Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji said, "An officer who repeatedly committed acts of insubordination/suppression during the period of probation would continue with such acts and inappropriate behavior unabated after confirmation, setting a bad example for the other judicial officers. The said course of action would not at all be desirable."

Abhinav Kiran Sekhon had challenged the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, by which his service was dispensed with being "unsatisfactory", under Rule 7 (2) of Part-D of the Rules.

Sekhon qualified for the Punjab Civil Services (PCS) Judicial Examination, in 2015 and was appointed in March 2016 and joined his service in April 2016, completing his training in April 2017.

He served as a Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Ferozepur and also as Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Rajpura, cumulatively for more than four years till his services were allegedly illegally and arbitrarily dispensed with, by the impugned order dated April 09, 2021.

Sekhon argued that his service as a 'Probationer' was automatically confirmed after a maximum period of three years, inclusive of extension, and could not have been dispensed with, without conducting proper disciplinary proceedings against him.

The period of probation could not have been extended beyond three years and therefore, there was no question of dispensation simpliciter, he added.

The Court rejected the contention that the petitioner's services were deemed to be confirmed upon expiry of the maximum period of probation.

"the petitioner's service cannot be deemed to be confirmed upon expiry of maximum period of probation. The said period of three years is directory in nature and not a mandatory stipulation," the Court opined.

It added further that since the explanation to Rule 7(1) of the Rules, clearly provides that the period of probation shall be deemed to have been extended impliedly if a subordinate judge is not confirmed on the expiry of his period of probation.

"Rule 7 (1) has to be read as a whole, in conjunction with Rule 7 (3). Proviso to Rule 7 (3) also clearly stipulates that the completion of maximum period of three years probation would not confer on him any right to be confirmed till there is a permanent vacancy or if the report by the High Court regarding unsatisfactory work or conduct of the probationer was made to the government before expiry of maximum period of probation. Furthermore, explanation to 7 (1) also clarifies that the period of probation shall be implied to have been extended unless the service of a subordinate judge is confirmed," said the Court.

Period Of Training Not Required To Be Considered For Counting Probation

The Court noted that the petitioner was appointed on March 08, 2016. He joined on April 07, 2016, and was under training from April 08, 2016, to April 08, 2017.

"Such period of training was not required to be considered for computation of maximum period of probation as duly noted by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge. Moreover, the conduct/action of the petitioner clearly rendered him unsuitable as a judicial officer and only assessment of Annual Confidential Reports or grant of annual increments are not indicative of suitability of a judicial officer. Till such time an order of confirmation is not made after scrutinizing the records of a judicial officer, he continued to be a probationer," the Court said.

Not Waiting For Approval Of Ex-India Leave Before Travelling Abroad Indicative Of His Insubordination

The Court opined that the petitioner did not think it necessary to wait for his approval of Ex-India leave before traveling abroad is indicative of his insubordination.

"Despite being informed telephonically that his leave has been rejected, he still proceeded to travel abroad and did not think it necessary to apologize immediately upon his return in October, 2019," said the Court.

It was noted that upon being asked to explain the reason for fixing less cases on 23rd and 24th October 2019, the petitioner allegedly only referred to earned leaves that he intended to take on the aforesaid dates without disclosing that he planned to travel abroad on those dates and traveled by clubbing the same with Diwali vacation, without obtaining necessary permission.

The Court further opined that the scope of interference in judicial review is extremely limited and the Court has to review only the 'decision-making process' and not the 'decision' itself.

It noted that the High Court on its administrative side evaluated the acts and conduct of the judicial officer based on the recommendation of the Vigilance Committee as directed by the Chief Justice on the recommendations of the Administrative Judge.

Adding that the procedure has been correctly followed leading to the recommendation of the Full Court to the government for dispensation of service of the judicial officer, the Court said, "there is no infirmity in such 'decision making process' which merits interference."

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

 R. S. Bains, Senior Advocate with  Aman Raj Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner.

 Arjun Sheoran, DAG, Punjab.

Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate, Randeep Singh Smagh, Advocate and Mona Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 70