Punjab & Haryana high court upholds dismissal of former Haryana judicial officer
CHANDIGARH: The concept of "deemed confirmation" cannot override an employer's power to analyse work, conduct and behaviour of a probationer to ensure suitability in service, the Punjab and Haryana high court said, dismissing a petition filed by a former judicial officer of Haryana Civil Services (judicial branch).
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Upholding the dismissal of the petitioner, Ankur Lal, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said "deemed confirmation" was "a perilous concept in service jurisprudence which has long been discarded", since it erodes into the power of the employer to assess work, conduct and behaviour of the probationer. Besides, it would mean even a person of questionable integrity could enter judicial services, the judges added.
"If deemed confirmation is brought into play, notwithstanding the adverse remarks, including that of 'integrity doubtful' based on lacklustre performance, conduct and behaviour of the petitioner, then an anomalous situation would arise where the probationer, despite being unfit for confirmation, is deemed to be confirmed. This would bring into the service a judge of doubtful integrity, whose service record is tainted with adverse remarks.
This would be deleterious to the very concept of probity on which the entire judicial system stands," the bench said.
The petitioner had sought directions to quash the recommendation dated July 23, 2012, for termination of his probationary service as civil judge (junior division). Appointed on Feb 13, 2008, Lal was placed on probation for two years, a period later extended by the high court administration.
Following a complaint received from the Ferozepur Jhirka Bar Association, the then acting Chief Justice referred the matter to the administrative committee. On July 18, 2012, the committee recommended Lal's termination in view of his conduct and overall service record during his posting in Bhiwani.
Lal, in his petition, argued that under Rule 7.3 of the Rules of 1951, after completing two years of probation plus an extension of one year, and in the backdrop of available vacancies in the cadre, he should have been deemed confirmed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Judicial integrity paramount: High court rules ‘deemed confirmation' can't override adverse probation reports
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that the concept of "deemed confirmation" cannot override an employer's power to analyse work, conduct and behaviour of a probationer to ensure suitability in service, upholding the dismissal of a petitioner from judicial services. "If deemed confirmation is brought into play, notwithstanding the adverse remarks, including that of 'integrity doubtful' based on lacklustre performance, conduct, and behaviour of the petitioner, then an anomalous situation would arise where the probationer, despite being unfit for confirmation, is deemed to be confirmed. This would bring into the service a judge of doubtful integrity, whose service record is tainted with adverse remarks. This would be deleterious to the very concept of probity on which the entire judicial system stands," the high court has held. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel passed the orders while dismissing the petition filed by Ankur Lal, a former judicial officer of Haryana Civil Services (judicial branch). The petitioner sought directions to quash the recommendations dated July 23, 2012, for termination of his probationary service as civil judge (junior division). by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Appointed on Feb 13, 2008, Lal was placed on probation for two years, a period later extended by the high court administration. Following an anonymous complaint from the Bar Association, Ferozepur Jhirka, then acting Chief Justice referred the matter to the administrative committee. On July 18, 2012, the committee recommended Lal's services be dispensed with keeping in view his work conduct and overall service record during his posting in Bhiwani. Lal, in his petition, argued that under Rule 7.3 of the Rules of 1951, after completing two years of probation plus an extension of one year, and in the backdrop of available vacancies in the cadre, he should have been deemed confirmed. However, the bench rejected his contention, emphasising that the concept of deemed confirmation is anarchy, which was given up a long time ago in service jurisprudence "Even otherwise, the relevant Rule 7.3 proviso clearly stipulates that mere completion of a maximum period of three years' probation would not confer on the probationers the right to be confirmed till there is a permanent vacancy in the cadre," observed the bench while upholding the dismissal of the petitioner from judicial services. BOX 'Perilous concept'Deemed confirmation is a perilous concept in service jurisprudence which has long been discarded since it erodes into the power of the employer to assess work, conduct, and behaviour of the probationer High court
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Punjab & Haryana high court upholds dismissal of former Haryana judicial officer
CHANDIGARH: The concept of "deemed confirmation" cannot override an employer's power to analyse work, conduct and behaviour of a probationer to ensure suitability in service, the Punjab and Haryana high court said, dismissing a petition filed by a former judicial officer of Haryana Civil Services (judicial branch). Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Upholding the dismissal of the petitioner, Ankur Lal, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said "deemed confirmation" was "a perilous concept in service jurisprudence which has long been discarded", since it erodes into the power of the employer to assess work, conduct and behaviour of the probationer. Besides, it would mean even a person of questionable integrity could enter judicial services, the judges added. "If deemed confirmation is brought into play, notwithstanding the adverse remarks, including that of 'integrity doubtful' based on lacklustre performance, conduct and behaviour of the petitioner, then an anomalous situation would arise where the probationer, despite being unfit for confirmation, is deemed to be confirmed. This would bring into the service a judge of doubtful integrity, whose service record is tainted with adverse remarks. This would be deleterious to the very concept of probity on which the entire judicial system stands," the bench said. The petitioner had sought directions to quash the recommendation dated July 23, 2012, for termination of his probationary service as civil judge (junior division). Appointed on Feb 13, 2008, Lal was placed on probation for two years, a period later extended by the high court administration. Following a complaint received from the Ferozepur Jhirka Bar Association, the then acting Chief Justice referred the matter to the administrative committee. On July 18, 2012, the committee recommended Lal's termination in view of his conduct and overall service record during his posting in Bhiwani. Lal, in his petition, argued that under Rule 7.3 of the Rules of 1951, after completing two years of probation plus an extension of one year, and in the backdrop of available vacancies in the cadre, he should have been deemed confirmed.
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Indian Express
HC upholds discharge of Haryana probationary judge: ‘deemed confirmation a perilous concept'
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the dismissal of former probationary civil judge (junior division) Ankur Lal, rejecting his plea against a decade-old discharge order over integrity concerns and unsatisfactory performance. The ruling, pronounced on Thursday by a bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissed Lal's writ petition challenging the decision of the high court's Full Court, which recommended his discharge on July 23, 2012. Acting on these recommendations, the Haryana Government issued an order on December 4, 2012, terminating his probationary services. Lal had approached the high court through Civil Writ Petition No. 17822 of 2013, seeking to quash both the Full Court's recommendation and the discharge order. He had served as a probationary civil judge from 2009 to 2012, but his service record reflected multiple adverse remarks. These included a 'B-Satisfactory' rating in 2009–10, a 'C–Below Average' rating with the remark 'integrity doubtful' in 2010–11, and a 'B–Average' rating in 2011–12, during which the Bar Association of Ferozepur Jhirka submitted an anonymous complaint against him. The Administrative Committee had recommended that his services be dispensed with, a view endorsed by the Full Court and conveyed to the government, culminating in the discharge order. In court, Lal argued that under Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, he was entitled to deemed confirmation upon completion of three years of probation, especially in light of available vacancies. The bench rejected this argument, holding that deemed confirmation requires both a permanent vacancy and satisfactory service—neither of which was applicable in Lal's case. 'There is no allegation of mala fide intent on the part of the authorities,' the court noted. Emphasising the importance of integrity in the judiciary, the bench observed in its judgment: 'The concept of probation is to enable the Employer to analyse the work, conduct and behaviour of the appointee… This power cannot be taken away… Deemed confirmation is a perilous concept in service jurisprudence…' 'If deemed confirmation is brought into play… then an anomalous situation would arise where the probationer, despite being unfit, is deemed to be confirmed, bringing into the service a Judge of doubtful integrity. This would be deleterious to the very concept of probity on which the entire judicial system stands,' it added. The court found no procedural irregularity in the discharge decision and ordered that Lal's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) be returned to the relevant branch. With this ruling, the high court has reinforced the principle that integrity and performance during probation are non-negotiable in judicial appointments, and automatic confirmation cannot override a service record marred by adverse remarks.
