The Supreme Court, on December 17, reserved its judgment in the case challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to terminate the services of two lady judicial officers, Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Choudhary, both of whom were probationary officers.
Case Background
The controversy arose when the Madhya Pradesh High Court terminated the services of six judicial officers simultaneously. However, following the Supreme Court’s direction, the High Court reinstated four of them, leaving Aditi and Sarita seeking relief against their termination.
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh heard arguments from Senior Advocates Indira Jaising (for Aditi), R Basant (for Sarita), and Gaurav Agarwal (as Amicus Curiae), while Advocate-on-Record Arjun Garg appeared for the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Arguments in Aditi’s Case
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising argued that Aditi’s termination was punitive and not a routine termination simpliciter. Key points raised include:
Adverse remarks were communicated to Aditi only after termination, violating natural justice.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court failed to accommodate her mental and physical health concerns following an abortion during her probation period.
Disparities in performance assessments arose, with her Principal District Judge rating her performance as “good” and “very good,” whereas the inspection judge (Ratlam) gave her an “average” rating, affecting her assessment.
Jaising asserted:
“When you look at the surrounding materials, you will find that it is not an order of termination simpliciter but an order for cause.”
She emphasized that the proposed action for her “so-called poor performance” was merely advisory and not termination. Jaising also clarified that Aditi was willing to drop the inspection judge (Respondent 3) from the petition, which the Court allowed.
In response, Arjun Garg, representing the High Court, argued that the termination was routine and based on multiple complaints and performance issues, not punitive. He emphasized that probationary officers do not have an indefeasible right to employment or confirmation.
Justice Nagarathna noted that termination must not be arbitrary, stating:
“If it’s about overall performance, conduct, and suitability, then it is one thing. But if they find there are complaints and other materials, then it is not a termination simpliciter.”
Arguments in Sarita’s Case
Senior Advocate R Basant contended that Sarita’s termination stemmed primarily from complaints, including one regarding a Facebook post and others alleging misbehavior with litigants and staff. Basant emphasized that Sarita was a top-ranked candidate in the Scheduled Caste list and ranked highly in the General Category list.
Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agarwal presented details of the complaints, noting:
There were 11 complaints filed against Sarita.
Categories included advisories, warnings, and non-recordable warnings.
None of the complaints questioned Sarita’s integrity.
Agarwal further stated that two serious complaints remained unresolved:
- Failure to monitor 321 suspicious cases, for which an enquiry was ongoing.
- Facebook post, where no explanation was sought.
Justice Nagarathna expressed disapproval of judges using social media, remarking:
“Judges should avoid using social media.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Stand
Arjun Garg maintained that neither officer had an indefeasible right to continuation as their services were still under probation. He emphasized that termination simpliciter is not punitive unless it carries a stigma or results from specific misconduct proceedings.
Garg argued that the High Court’s decision was based on overall performance and complaints, which are part of the officers’ service records, and not treated as separate punitive material.
Key Observations by the Bench
Justice Nagarathna reiterated that termination must not be arbitrary and distinguished between general performance issues and punitive actions resulting from complaints. The Court repeatedly emphasized adherence to the principles of natural justice.
Case Details
Case Titles:
Aditi Kumar Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 233/2024)
Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (W.P.(C) No. 142/2024)
In Re: Termination of Civil Judge, Class-II (Jr. Division) Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Service. (SMW(C) No. 2/2023)
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment in this critical case concerning the termination of probationary judicial officers, underscoring the importance of natural justice and ensuring that administrative decisions are free from arbitrariness. The ruling is expected to clarify the balance between judicial accountability and procedural fairness for probationary officers.
Lawcutor 