3 days ago
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
