HC upholds discharge of Haryana probationary judge: ‘deemed confirmation a perilous concept'

Indian Express

3 days ago

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.