A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The petitions challenge the termination of two women judicial officers Sushri Sarita Choudhary and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma from the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service during probation. Six women officers were terminated in May 2023; four were later reinstated after the Full Court reconsidered following directions from the Supreme Court, but the two petitioners remained terminated. The core legal question was whether these terminations were non-stigmatic terminations simpliciter (permissible for unsuitability on probation) or stigmatic (punitive) dismissals attracting Article 311 safeguards and principles of natural justice.

The Supreme Court examined the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), unit-value/disposal statistics, the timing and communication of adverse entries, the status of complaints lodged against the officers (many of which were closed or in abeyance), and the administrative process culminating in the Full Court and Government decisions. The Court held that adverse ACR remarks were in several instances not communicated in time, explanations were not considered or were rejected without expunction, and that surrounding circumstances indicated the terminations were effectively punitive and stigmatic.

Applying precedents on probationers’ rights and the veil-lifting test where a termination cloaks punishment, the Court set aside the impugned resolutions, orders and termination letters insofar as the two petitioners were concerned, and ordered reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Keywords: Termination during probation; ACR communication; Stigmatic v. non-stigmatic termination; Article 311; Women judicial officers.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The petitions arise out of the Administrative Committee of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s recommendation (May 2023) terminating six junior judicial officers during their probation on grounds of low disposal, adverse ACR remarks, and alleged deficiencies in managerial/interpersonal conduct. Following representations and a suo motu registration by the Supreme Court, the Full Court (on reconsideration) revoked termination for four officers but maintained termination for the two present petitioners by pointing to their ACR gradings, complaints and alleged overall poor performance.

The Supreme Court was asked to examine whether the administrative exercise embodied adequate application of mind, complied with statutory and constitutional safeguards, and whether the substance of the terminations when examined beyond form revealed punitive/stigmatic action that attracted Article 311 safeguards (e.g., the need for inquiry before dismissal for misconduct) or whether they were permissible non-stigmatic terminations simpliciter for unsuitability during probation.

The Bench framed points concerning communication and timing of adverse ACR entries, the weight given to complaints (many closed or in abeyance), the relevance of unit-value metrics (especially during COVID disruption), and the requirement of reasoned application of mind by administrative authorities.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Ms. Sarita Choudhary was appointed as Civil Judge Class-II on probation (joined Jan 25, 2017). Her ACR trajectory varied: initial trainee-year ACRs positive, later years fluctuated — B (Very Good) for 2018; C (Good) 2019; D (Average) 2020; E (Poor) 2021; C (Good) 2022. Unit values and disposal statistics showed variability and some improvement in 2022. Numerous complaints (2019–2023) were recorded against her, but several were closed with advisories or warnings; two remained pending/abeyance. Crucially, some adverse ACR entries (notably 2021) were communicated after termination and representations by the officer were either not followed up or rejected without expunction. Termination letter dated 23.05.2023 followed Administrative Committee resolutions.

Ms. Aditi Kumar Sharma joined service on 25.10.2018 (trainee). Her ACRs read B (2019), C (2020), C (2021), D (2022); unit-values were low in 2020–2022 (COVID period), with explanations tendered including medical hospitalization (COVID ICU), miscarriage and family illness. Multiple complaints existed (dogs incident, alleged courtroom comments, procedural lapses) many kept in abeyance or disposed of with advisory. The Portfolio Judge lowered certain gradings citing pendency/disposal; some adverse entries were only finalized/communicated post-termination. Administrative Committee recommended termination in May 2023; Full Court declined to reinstate her in Aug 2024.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the termination of judicial officers during probation was a termination simpliciter (non-stigmatic) or a punitive/stigmatic dismissal attracting Article 311 safeguards?
ii. Whether adverse ACR entries and other material were communicated in time and considered in accordance with duty to apply mind and fair process?
iii. Whether reliance on unit-value/disposal statistics — especially for years affected by COVID-19 — was arbitrary, or required contextual accommodation?
iv. Whether complaints (many closed/abeyance) could form the basis for termination without prior inquiry or opportunity of representation?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The petitioners urged that their ACRs reflected overall competence and improvement (especially 2022), that adverse remarks were communicated late or post-termination and explanations were not given due regard, and that many complaints were closed with warnings/advisories or were not relevant to judicial capability. They argued COVID disruptions (unit relaxations and limited functioning) and personal medical hardships (hospitalisation, miscarriage) materially affected unit-values and warranted compassionate/contextual evaluation. Relying on Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India and subsequent authorities, petitioners contended the terminations were, in substance, punitive cloaked as non-confirmation and therefore stigmatic, inviting Article 311 protections and relief.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The High Court maintained that probation is evaluative and discretionary; a probationer has no indefeasible right to continuance. The assessments were holistic with reliance on ACR gradings, unit values and complaints. The Court contended the decision was a considered administrative exercise and not punitive; hence no Article 311 inquiry was necessary. Precedents recognizing High Court primacy in district judicial staffing and supervisory control were pressed in support. It argued portfolio and disposal considerations legitimately informed gradings and the Full Court applied collective discretion after review.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court undertook a granular review of records, ACRs, assessment charts, complaint files, timelines of communication and the Full Court proceedings. The Court emphasised substance over form: a probationer may be terminated simpliciter for unsuitability, but where termination is in effect punitive/stigmatic (casts aspersions, founded on complaints of misconduct, or without fair opportunity), Article 311 and principles of natural justice are engaged. Applying the veil-lifting approach from Anoop Jaiswal and follow-up cases, the Court found multiple infirmities:

• Several adverse ACR entries relied upon were not communicated to the officers in proper time; in some instances the communications came after termination. Explanations submitted were either not considered or rejected without expunction. This procedural lapse vitiated the administrative decision-making process. .

• The record exhibited internal contradictions in ACRs periodic improvement (e.g., 2022 grade ‘C’) alongside adverse advisory notes undermining any clear finding of persistent poor performance. .

• Many complaints were closed with warnings or advisories, or placed in abeyance; the Court held such dispositions could not, without inquiry, legitimate stigmatic termination. Where complaints formed the foundation for harsh action, the affected officers were entitled to prior opportunity to meet allegations in accordance with Art. 311 read with service rules. .

• COVID-era disruptions materially affected unit-values; the Court found it unreasonable to treat lowered disposals during that period as conclusive of unsuitability, particularly where administrative circulars afforded relaxations and where personal medical events (hospitalisation, miscarriage) affected functioning. The Court directed contextual appreciation of unit statistics. .

Conclusion and Relief: The Court held terminations vis-à-vis Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma were punitive/stigmatic in substance and procedurally flawed. The impugned Full Court resolutions, High Court orders and government termination letters were set aside insofar as these petitioners were concerned. Both officers were to be reinstated with all consequential service benefits. The judgment also reiterated standards for future administrative action in judicial appointments/confirmations and emphasised gender-sensitive considerations in evaluating women judicial officers’ career interruptions and health-related events.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The dispositive ratio is that while a probationer can be removed for unsuitability without inquiry, where the surrounding circumstances and the substance of the record show the termination is effectively punitive/stigmatic (founded on complaints or adverse entries not fairly communicated/considered), Article 311 safeguards and fair opportunity requirements apply; failure to adhere renders the termination illegal. Administrative action must show coherent application of mind, timely communication of adverse materials, and contextual appreciation (e.g., COVID impacts, medical leave).

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed the importance of female representation in the judiciary and the need for sensitive workplace environments that factor pregnancy, miscarriage and post-COVID health effects into career assessments. It underscored that gender is not an automatic shield but is an important factor for holistic decision-making in marginal situations. The Bench warned against using warnings/advisories as covert grounds for stigmatic termination.

c. GUIDELINES

• Adverse ACR entries must be communicated promptly; explainable remarks must be considered and, if satisfactory, expunged.

• Complaints forming the basis for adverse administrative action must be the subject of informed consideration and where misconduct is alleged, a fair opportunity/inquiry per Art. 311 must be afforded.

• Unit-value metrics must be applied contextually (COVID relaxations, court vacancy realities, medical leaves).

• Administrative resolutions must record reasons and show structured application of mind; full-court reconsiderations must transparently disclose materials relied upon (sealed covers unacceptable as a substitute for reasoned orders).

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reaffirms established principles balancing administrative discretion in probation evaluation with constitutional guarantees against arbitrary and stigmatic dismissals. Practically, it protects probationers from covert punitive removals based on belatedly-communicated adverse remarks or unresolved complaints, and mandates procedural fairness even in probationary contexts where confirmatory discretion operates. The decision has salient gender-sensitive import: courts and administrative bodies must factor health, pregnancy-related trauma and pandemic disruptions into performance assessment.

For judicial administrations, the ruling calls for stricter process norms on ACR finalisation, timely communication of criticisms, documented application of mind and careful use of complaints/warnings in confirmation decisions. The judgment is a measured calibration: it does not curtail the High Court’s supervisory role over district judiciary but ensures that supervisory power is exercised within constitutional and procedural guardrails.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

• Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India, (1984) 2 SCC 369.

• Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, (1999) 3 SCC 60.

• Ved Priya (Rajasthan High Court v. Ved Priya) and other service law precedents discussed in text.

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 16, 311.

• Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (r.11(c)).