Probationers must be heard; a punitive action without inquiry is against natural justice: Punjab & Haryana HC Reinstates Judicial Officer

Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP-25150-2021 reinstated Nazmeen Singh, a judicial officer dismissed from service while on probation. The Court quashed the dismissal order, ruling that the decision violated principles of natural justice due to the absence of a full-fledged inquiry into allegations of misconduct. The petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with continuity in service and all consequential benefits, except monetary compensation.

Nazmeen Singh, a Civil Judge (Junior Division), was appointed in 2016 after qualifying in the Punjab Civil Services Judicial Examination. During her probationary period, an incident occurred in July 2018 involving a medical board at PGIMER, Chandigarh. Allegations of misconduct were raised against her by the board members during an inquest into the death of a prisoner. Despite these allegations, the inquiry conducted was flawed, and not all complainants were called to testify. The disciplinary committee recommended her dismissal in 2020, citing unsatisfactory performance during her probation.

The legal issue in this case centered on whether the petitioner’s dismissal during her probation period was justified without conducting a full inquiry into the allegations of misconduct. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, referencing several Supreme Court rulings, emphasized that a full inquiry is essential when allegations are serious and may lead to punitive action. The Court noted that the petitioner had completed the maximum permissible period of probation and, as per the State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh ruling, should have been deemed confirmed in her position.

The Court also highlighted that critical evidence, including audio and video recordings submitted against the petitioner, was not accompanied by the necessary certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The lack of proper procedural adherence made the evidence inadmissible, leading the Court to conclude that her dismissal was arbitrary and stigmatic.

The Court ruled that the petitioner’s dismissal, purportedly due to unsatisfactory work, was in fact based on unproven allegations. Furthermore, the inquiry into her conduct failed to summon all relevant parties, making the investigation incomplete. The Court observed that since the petitioner had already completed her probationary period, she should have been confirmed in her position unless a full-fledged inquiry proved otherwise.

The judgment emphasized that the discharge of a probationer without a proper inquiry amounts to a violation of natural justice. Citing Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences and V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that any action that carries stigmatic consequences must follow due process, including a fair opportunity for the accused to defend themselves.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision underscores the necessity of adhering to due process when dismissing probationary employees, especially when the dismissal is based on serious allegations. In this case, the Court found that the dismissal of Nazmeen Singh was procedurally flawed and violative of natural justice principles, leading to her reinstatement.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2024

Nazmeen Singh v. State of Punjab & Others