Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Against Dismissal Of 2 Women Judicial Officers By Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Supreme Court today (December 17) reserved judgment in the case concerning the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to terminate two lady judicial officers from service.

In this case, six judicial officers were simultaneously terminated from service. On the direction of the Court, a full bench of the Madhya Pradesh Court agreed to reinstate 4 female judicial officers. Therefore, 2 lady officers were before the Court seeking a remedy against termination. 

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh heard submissions from Senior Counsels Indira Jaising (for Aditi) and R Basant (for Sarita). 

Jaising has prayed that Aditi should be reinstated with back wages and that she be confirmed in service. It should be noted that both lady judicial officers were on probation when their services were terminated. As for Sarita, Basant pleaded that she be reinstated like the other four officers and as for the back wages, the Court may decide upon that. 

Whereas, the position of Madhya Pradesh High Court, through AOR Arjun Garg, has been that both lady officers do not have an indefeasible right to continue employment until confirmed. Their termination was a routine termination based on various considerations including overall performance and conduct. He has also argued that in the case of confirmed employees, the "scope of judicial interference" is comparatively more expansive than those on probation. 

Further, he had submitted that only in the case of "stigmatised" removal can the officers claim punitive termination. Moreover, principles of natural justice of being heard cannot be claimed by probationary officers. He reiterated that both are termination simpliciter. 

Throughout the hearing, the Court has maintained a position that the termination must not be arbitrary. Justice Nagarathna said: "See, if it's about overall performance, conduct and suitability, then it is one thing. But if they find there are complaints and other materials, then it is not a termination simpliciter. Then, termination becomes punitive. That's their argument."

Garg responded that complaints are a part of the service records and are not treated as separate material.

Arguments in Aditi's case 

In Aditi's case, Jaising claimed that the termination is "punitive" in nature including that adverse remarks made against the lady judicial officers were communicated to her only after termination and that during the assessment of performance, the Madhya Pradesh High Court failed to accommodate her mental and physical health after she had suffered abortion. 

It is also her case that adverse remarks about her performance, based also on which her termination took place, were made by the inspection judge from Ratlam (administrative judge) and not by the Principal District Judge where she was posted in Satna. It is Jaising's case that the lady officer in her ACR had received good and very good remarks but the inspection judge gave her an 'average remark' which affected her assessment.

She said: "When you look at the surrounding materials, you will find that it is not an order of termination simpliciter but an order for cause. The cause being complaints against her, and her poor performance so-called for which the only contemplated action was to improve your services. The contemplated action for so-called poor performance was not termination."  

Jaising also submitted that the lady officer is willing to drop Respondent 3 (inspection judge) from the present petition, which the Court allowed. The inspected judge had performed an inquiry after a lawyer filed a complaint alleging that the lady officer's behaviour was not good in Court. Jaising pointed out that the lawyer withdrew his complaint but it is her case that the inspection judge spoke to other people and came to a conclusion.

On being asked by Justice Nagarathna what the Madhya Pradesh High Court did with the complaints, Jaising responded: "They kept the complaints in so-called abeyance and the proposed action was advisory, which was never issued." She added that closure must be up to these complaints so that when she is reinstated, the complaints are not used against her.

Garg clarified that there were in fact two different complaints in which two different inquiries were conducted. He added that this is a case where multiple complaints are against the lady officer and in both complaints she was found guilty.

Further, contending Jaising's plea, Garg submitted that there is no indefeasible right of a probation officer to employment or confirmation. He also pressed for the same relief, if at all the petition is allowed, as granted to the other four lady officers. She could be reinstated but continue as a probation officer for a year.

Clarifying this, Justice Nagarathna said: "The point they are raising is there cannot be arbitrary termination." 

Arguments in Sarita's case  

In Sarita's case, Basant stated that her termination was mainly based on the several complaints filed against her, particularly two complaints one of which pertains to a post on Facebook. Overall, the lady judicial officer scored rank 1 in the Scheduled Caste list and even ranked very high in the General Category list. It is his case that although the complaints were filed which were related to misbehaviour with litigants, staff, lawyers, etc, she was advised not to repeat the same.  

Amicus and Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal stated that in Sarita's case, there are 4 adverse entries out of which she had made a representation in the two. Agarwal read around 11 complaints filed against the lady judicial officers. One of the complaints was related to her posting something on Facebook, which drew strong oral remarks from Justice Nagarathna that judges should avoid using social media. In another, she was granted bail in a non-bailable offence. But in all those complaints, she was only issued advisories/warnings.

He said: "It appears from the reply of the High Court that before the administrative committee, it was mentioned that there were two pending complaints against the judicial officer. 9 complaints have been concluded. Those complaints are of three categories: advisories, warnings, and non-recordable warning. Even if the complaints were very serious, the High Court have said no-this is a very serious complaint. But the High Court has not taken that seriously that maybe the judicial officer did not sit on time, maybe one lawyer complaint, or that she granted bail in a non-bailable case...What I am emphasising, there is no complainant against the integrity of the officer concerned." 

As for the other 2 complaints, one is regarding 321 suspicious cases which were not continuously monitored by the officer. Agarwal stated that an enquiry was conducted by Civil Judge, Senior Division. Here, her explanation is awaited. Another complaint is on the Facebook post where no explanation was sought from here.

Case Details: Case Details: ADITI KUMAR SHARMA v STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 233/2024 & SARITA CHOUDHARY v. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 142/2024 & IN RE: TERMINATION OF CIVIL JUDGE, CLASS-II (JR. DIVISION) MADHYA PRADESH STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE., SMW(C) No. 2/2023

Appearances: Senior Advocate Indira Jaising (for Aditi) Senior Advocate R Basant (for Sarita), Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal (Amicus) and AOR Arjun Garg (for Madhya Pradesh High Court)

Click Here To Read Order