Probationer Civil Judge's Discharge Quashed: Supreme Court

Probationer Civil Judge Cannot Be Discharged for Not Disclosing Government Job She Had Resigned: Supreme Court

Published: 3 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

The Supreme Court set aside the discharge of a probationer Civil Judge in Rajasthan who had not mentioned her earlier job as a government teacher, a job she had resigned before her interview. The omission was not a serious misconduct, her performance on probation was never faulted, and she was not heard in the inquiry. She was reinstated and treated as confirmed, with seniority and notional pay but no back wages (paras 18, 21, 27, 32).

Key holdings

Not disclosing past government service, resigned before the interview checklist, was an omission and not a ground for discharge (paras 18-19, 23).

Rule 46 permits discharging a probationer for unsatisfactory performance, which nobody alleged here (para 21).

Whether a discharge is punitive depends on its substance, not its form; probationers keep the protection of Articles 14 and 16 (paras 25-26).

A discharge resting on misconduct found in an inquiry where the probationer was not heard violates natural justice (para 27).

Allegations about her studies concerned her time as a teacher, not her work as a judicial officer (para 17).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Pinky Meena, a government teacher since 2014, applied in the 2017 Rajasthan Judicial Service recruitment and was selected. She resigned from teaching on 25.10.2018, before submitting her interview checklist on 02.11.2018, and was appointed Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate on probation on 11.02.2019 (paras 3, 15-16). After complaints, a show-cause notice of 17.02.2020 alleged that she had pursued two courses together and an LL.M. while teaching, concealed her teaching job and obtained no No Objection Certificate (paras 4-5, 16). On the inquiry report, the Full Court found her unfit for confirmation and she was discharged on 29.05.2020; the High Court dismissed her writ petition on 24.08.2023 (paras 2-3, 16).

Court's Findings

The allegations about her degrees concerned her years as a teacher, before judicial service (para 17). As she had resigned on 25.10.2018, well before the checklist of 02.11.2018, not disclosing her past government service was an omission, not a material irregularity or serious misconduct warranting discharge, especially as she completed her training without blemish and had been ill, often in hospital, since March 2018 (paras 17-18). No criminal antecedents were suppressed, and the missing NOC was rightly explained (paras 18-19). Rule 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 allows discharge for unsatisfactory performance on probation, but it was nobody's case that her performance was unsatisfactory (para 21). Under Rule 14 there was at best an omission, and she had been given ‘capital punishment’ for a minor irregularity (para 23). A discharge founded on misconduct, not on an assessment of work, is stigmatic and punitive; courts look at substance, not form, and Articles 14 and 16 still protect probationers (paras 24-26). Applying Shamsher Singh, the Court held the discharge also violated natural justice, as she was not heard in the inquiry (para 27). It added that a diverse judiciary with more women judges benefits the country (paras 28-31).

Legal Principle

A probationer may be discharged for unsatisfactory performance, but a discharge founded on alleged misconduct, after an inquiry in which the probationer was not heard, is stigmatic and punitive. A minor omission, such as not disclosing a government job already resigned, cannot justify it (paras 21, 23-27).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For High Courts acting on complaints against probationer judges, the ruling separates two routes. Rule 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 covers discharge for unsatisfactory performance on probation; a discharge resting on findings of misconduct is punitive, and here the inquiry behind it did not hear her (paras 21, 24-27). For candidates, the Court treated non-disclosure of a job already resigned as an omission, noting that no criminal antecedents were involved (paras 18, 23). The Court did not remit the matter: it directed that she be treated as confirmed (para 32). Compare Khetri Vikas Samiti, on when a private college's termination of a probationer takes effect.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 8, 27
Relied on for the rule that if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct, inefficiency or a similar reason without a proper enquiry and a reasonable opportunity of showing cause, the discharge may amount to removal from service within Article 311(2); applied to hold the appellant's discharge violated natural justice as she was not heard in the enquiry (also cited for the appellant, para 8).
Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation (2007) 10 SCC 71
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 25
Cited for the holding that where a probationer is discharged after the prescribed probation period, the order contains allegations and the circumstances show it was not based solely on an assessment of work and conduct during probation, the termination is stigmatic and punitive.
Raj Kumar v. Union of India (1968) 3 SCR 857
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13
Cited by the respondents, who relied on the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules to defend the discharge of a probationer.

View all precedents (9)

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13
Cited by the respondents, who relied on the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules to defend the discharge of a probationer.
Hari Singh Mann v. State of Punjab AIR 1974 SC 2263
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13
Cited by the respondents, who relied on the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules to defend the discharge of a probationer.
State of Punjab and another v. Sukh Raj Bahadur (1968) 3 SCR 234
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13
Cited by the respondents, who relied on the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules to defend the discharge of a probationer.
H.F. Sangati v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (2001) 3 SCC 117
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13
Cited by the respondents, who relied on the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules to defend the discharge of a probationer.
Rajesh Kohli v. High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and others (2010) 12 SCC 783
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13
Cited by the respondents, who relied on the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules to defend the discharge of a probationer.
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur v. Akashdeep Morya & Anr. 2021 INSC 485
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13
Cited by the respondents, who relied on the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules to defend the discharge of a probationer.