A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The writ petitions concern termination during probation of two women judicial officers Sushri Sarita Choudhary and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma whose services were dispensed with by the State on the recommendation of the High Court’s Administrative Committee (May 2023) citing unsatisfactory probationary performance (ACRs, unit values, complaints).

The Supreme Court (Full Bench) invited reconsideration; four of six similarly-situated officers were reinstated but the two petitioners remained terminated after the Full Court relied on ACR gradings, disposal statistics and complaints. The petitions challenge:

(i) non-communication or late communication of adverse entries in ACRs;

(ii) reliance on closed/insufficiently probed complaints;

(iii) arbitrariness and stigma in termination; and

(iv) failure to consider pandemic effects and gender-sensitive circumstances (illness, miscarriage, caregiving).

The Court analysed:

(a) distinction between termination simpliciter and stigmatic/punitive dismissal under Article 311;

(b) scope of judicial review over Full Court’s collective assessment; and

(c) procedural fairness in communicating adverse material to probationers.

Concluding that adverse ACR entries were inconsistently applied/communicated, some complaints were closed with mere advisories and that the surrounding material showed the terminations operated as punishment (stigmatic) rather than a non-stigmatic probationary end, the Court set aside the termination orders and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Keywords: termination during probation; ACR; stigmatic termination; Article 311; unit value; gender sensitivity.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The petitions arise from termination of six women Civil Judges (Junior Division) by the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Administrative Committee (May 2023) for alleged unsatisfactory probationary performance. Acting suo motu on representations, the Supreme Court asked the High Court to reconsider. The Full Court revoked termination for four officers subject to conditions but reiterated termination for Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma, placing adverse material in sealed cover.

The petitioners challenged legality, invoking late/non-communication of adverse ACR entries, reliance on closed advisories/warnings as termination basis, failure to weigh COVID-19 disruptions and individual health crises (hospitalisation, miscarriage) and argued the impugned orders were punitive (stigmatic) requiring Article 311 safeguards. The High Court and State defended the collective evaluation and submitted terminations were termination simpliciter for poor performance under Rule 11(c).

The Supreme Court examined whether the substance of the termination was punitive (requiring enquiry and hearing) or non-stigmatic, whether the Full Court applied relevant materials and whether gender/medical contexts were inadequately considered.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Sarita Choudhary appointed 25.01.2017; ACRs ranged B (Very Good) to E (Poor) across 2017–2022; unit values fluctuated (pre-COVID higher; 2020–2022 depressed); multiple complaints (2019–2023), many closed with warnings/advisories; adverse entries for 2020/2021 were communicated late (post termination) or were advisory; Full Court relied on ACR gradings, disposal statistics and complaints to deny revocation.

Aditi Kumar Sharma appointed 30.11.2018; early ACRs B / C but 2022 demoted to D (Average) (communicated after termination); suffered severe COVID illness and miscarriage in 2021; unit values low in 2020–22; several complaints (dogs/remarks/adjournment) some kept in abeyance or closed with advisories; Full Court relied on same matrix and refused reinstatement. Both received termination by State order dated 23.05.2023 following Full Court/Administrative Committee recommendation under r.11(c).

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether termination during probation was punitive/stigmatic (attracting Art. 311(2)) or termination simpliciter?
ii. Whether non-communication / belated communication of adverse ACR entries and reliance on closed advisories violated Articles 14/16 and principles of natural justice?
iii. Whether the Full Court’s collective assessment (ACRs, unit values, complaints) was arbitrary or based on relevant material?
iv. Whether gender-sensitive factors (pregnancy, miscarriage, severe illness) required special weight in assessing performance?
v. Whether the Court could go behind form to ascertain true character of termination (justice vs. routine administrative exercise)?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioners submitted that:

(i) adverse remarks were either not communicated in time or communicated post-termination, denying opportunity to respond;

(ii) many complaints were closed with warnings/advisories and thus could not form the basis for stigmatic termination;

(iii) pandemic conditions and personal medical crises materially affected unit values/disposals and should have been considered;

(iv) the Full Court failed to apply mind and treated advisories as punitive;

(v) order of termination operates as a stigma and therefore Article 311(2) protections apply;

(vi) reinstatement was equitable as granted to four peers.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent-High Court submitted that:

(i) probationers have no right to post and termination simpliciter is permissible under Rule 11(c);

(ii) Full Court’s collective evaluation deserves deference and the Court should not sit in appeal;

(iii) closed complaints and ACRs form part of overall assessment and may be considered;

(iv) no legal obligation exists to communicate every advisory remark prior to termination of a probationer; and

(v) the administrative process was bona fide and not punitive.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Court undertook a substance-over-form enquiry: distinguishing termination simpliciter from punitive/stigmatic dismissal, relying on precedent including Parshotam Lal Dhingra, Anoop Jaiswal, Jayshree Buddhbhatti and recent authorities (Swati Priyadarshini).

The Court found:

(1) many adverse entries were inconsistently recorded and some were communicated only after termination;

(2) several complaints cited by Full Court had been closed or resulted only in advisories/warnings insufficient to constitute proven misconduct;

(3) material contradicted persistent “poor performance” narrative ACRs showed improvement (e.g., Sarita’s 2022 grading improved to C);

(4) pandemic disruption and petitioner-A’s medical/emotional trauma (COVID ICU stay, miscarriage) were relevant contextual factors which the High Court failed to weigh;

(5) surrounding circumstances indicated the termination carried stigma therefore Article 311 protections were engaged;

(6) absence of meaningful application of mind and denial of opportunity vitiated the process.

Consequent relief: set aside Full Court resolution and May/23 State order; reinstate both petitioners with consequential benefits and direct placement at bottom of batch subject to probationary conditions as appropriate.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive principle is that courts must look to substance: where termination during probation is in effect founded on allegations of misconduct or is stigmatic, constitutional safeguards (Article 311) and the requirement of fair opportunity to rebut adverse material apply. A mere contractual power to terminate does not immunise administration from arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16. When adverse ACRs/complaints are used to stigmatise, they must be communicated timely and considered after allowing representation; otherwise termination cannot stand.

b. OBITER DICTA

Court emphasised gender-sensitive workplace norms: pregnancy, miscarriage, severe illness and caregiving impact performance metrics and must be factored. It urged institutional awareness of indirect discrimination and the necessity of a sensitive work environment to retain women in the judiciary, referencing Babita Puniya and Nitisha on indirect discrimination. The Court noted institutional records must not become instruments of stigma without due process.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Distinguish between termination simpliciter and punitive dismissal examine substance.

• Communicate adverse ACR remarks timely; allow representation before action if grounds amount to stigma.

• Closed complaints resulting only in advisories cannot be treated as proven misconduct for termination.

• Consider pandemic disruptions and personal medical crises (documentary proof) while assessing unit metrics.

• Full Court’s collective decision must show application of mind; Courts will judicially review arbitrariness.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

(As directed in format) The Court’s approach balances institutional autonomy of High Courts in judicial appointments with individual constitutional protections against arbitrary stigmatic discharge. By piercing form to examine substance, the judgment reaffirms that probationary power is not a carte blanche to impose punitive stigma without procedural fairness.

The gender-sensitivity observations underscore evolving administrative justice performance metrics cannot be a blunt instrument, especially amidst pandemics and personal crises. The decision restores the petitioners and lays out administrative safeguards (timely communication, reasoned application of mind) that will guide future probationary confirmations/terminations in judicial services.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India, [1984] 2 SCR 453 : (1984) 2 SCC 369.
ii. Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, [1958] SCR 828 : AIR 1958 SC 36.
iii. Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat v. Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti, [2013] 11 SCR 395 : (2013) 16 SCC 59.
iv. Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139.
v. Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya, (2020) 7 SCC 469.
vi. Nitisha v. Indian Army, (2021) 15 SCC 125.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 32, 311.
ii. Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 r.11(c).