Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

Termination of Judicial Officer - Acts of Insubordination and Non-Compliance During Probation Justify Termination – P&H High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a significant ruling, has upheld the termination of a judicial officer for acts of insubordination and suppression of material facts. The Court emphasized that the conduct of a judicial officer during the probation period is crucial for confirmation of service, and any deviation from expected standards cannot be overlooked.

The case revolved around the petitioner, Abhinav Kiran Sekhon, who challenged the termination of his service during the probationary period as a Civil Judge (Junior Division). The termination was based on allegations of insubordination, unauthorized overseas travel, and suppression of material facts from the High Court.

The petitioner contended that his service should have been automatically confirmed post the maximum probation period and that the termination was arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice.

The Court, in its detailed assessment, categorically stated, "the scope of interference in judicial review is extremely limited, and the Court has to review only the ‘decision making process’ and not the ‘decision’ itself." It observed that the acts of the petitioner demonstrated a blatant disregard for the procedural norms and guidelines, thereby rendering him unsuitable for continuation in service.

Justice Lapita Banerji noted, "An officer who repeatedly committed acts of insubordination/suppression during the period of probation would continue with such acts and inappropriate behavior unabated after confirmation, setting a bad example for the other judicial officers."

The writ petition was dismissed, and the termination of service was upheld. The Court's decision underscored the necessity for judicial officers to exhibit conduct befitting their role and highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in administrative decisions concerning judicial service.

Date of Decision: February 29, 2024

Abhinav Kiran Sekhon vs State of Punjab and Another

Latest Legal News