In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the dismissal of Ankur Lal, a former Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Haryana, whose probationary services were terminated due to adverse remarks regarding his integrity. The court emphasized that the concept of "deemed confirmation" cannot override an employer's authority to assess a probationer's work, conduct, and behavior to determine their suitability for continued service.
Ankur Lal was appointed as a Civil Judge in 2008 under the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951. Initially placed on a two-year probation, his probation was extended due to concerns about his performance and conduct. The Administrative Committee of the High Court reviewed his case and recommended an extension of his probation for six months, citing below-average remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the years 2010-11, including a "C" grade with the comment "integrity doubtful." These remarks were based on an anonymous complaint received from the Bar Association of Ferozepur Jhirka, which alleged misconduct on Lal's part.
The court noted that Lal's probation was extended in light of these adverse remarks, and despite the completion of the extended probation period, the concerns about his integrity persisted. The Full Court of the High Court, after reviewing the matter, recommended the termination of Lal's services, which was subsequently implemented.
Lal challenged his dismissal, arguing that after completing the extended probation period, he should have been deemed confirmed in service, especially in the presence of available vacancies. He contended that the concept of "deemed confirmation" under Rule 7.3 of the 1951 Rules should apply, thereby entitling him to automatic confirmation.
However, the High Court rejected Lal's argument, stating that the concept of "deemed confirmation" is outdated and cannot supersede the employer's right to assess a probationer's suitability for service. The court emphasized that allowing automatic confirmation in the face of adverse remarks would lead to the retention of individuals unfit for service, thereby compromising the integrity of the judicial system.
The court further observed that the principle of "deemed confirmation" undermines the employer's authority to evaluate a probationer's performance and conduct. It highlighted that such a principle could result in the retention of individuals whose service records are tainted with adverse remarks, thereby affecting the overall quality and integrity of the judicial system.
In conclusion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the dismissal of Ankur Lal, reinforcing the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity and conduct within the judiciary. The court's decision underscores that probationary periods serve as a critical phase for assessing the suitability of judicial officers, and adverse remarks during this period can validly lead to termination of services.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.