MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High 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

Similar News