Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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