MP High Court Upholds Termination Of Probationer Civil Judge For Misbehaviour

Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh): The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld termination of a civil judge junior division on probation period and dismissed his petition challenging termination from services on September 5, 2024 for misbehaviour with advocates, police personnel and the court staff.

The court turned down the argument of the petitioner that the decision of the administrative committee and the Full Court was punitive and not simply to discharge him from service.

A division bench of Chief Justice SK Kait and Justice Vivek Jain held ‘the petition being devoid of merits, deserved to be and stands dismissed’.

‘The specific language of Rule 11(d), it is clear that for a probationer to seek confirmation, it is necessary that he should have successfully completed the period of probation and found suitable to hold the post’, the court observed.

The High Court recommended termination of civil judge junior division Kaustubh Khera who was on probation under provisions of Rule 11(c) of M.P. Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules of 1994 on account of unsuitability for the post.

Khera was discharged from the post of Civil Judge, junior division through order dated 05/09/2024 passed by the State Government, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs based upon the recommendations of the Administrative Committee of the High Court dated 08.8.2024 that was ratified by the Full Court meeting on 20/08/2024.

‘He (the petitioner) was only a probationer and a satisfaction was reached that he will not shape into a suitable Judicial Officer and therefore, the decision was taken to discharge him from service without casting any stigma and even not disqualifying him for future appointments’, the High Court’s senior advocate Aditya Adhikari argued.

Khera argued the case in person and placed documents obtained by him under Right to Information relating to his termination and other documents including various complaints about his working placed before the Administrative Committee.

The complaints against the petitioner ‘were seven in numbers including misbehavior with advocates appearing in his Court, initiating contempt of court proceedings, trying and dropping the said proceedings against advocates, president of Bar Association and police personnel without any authority to initiate contempt of Court proceedings’, the court order said.

‘The other complaints against the petitioner were related to leaving headquarter without permission, passing penalty order of fine against his Court peon and sentencing his court peon to two months imprisonment for committing misconduct without having authority to pass such orders, etc’, the court order said.

‘Certain complaints against the petitioner were made by the Court staff including women staff regarding verbal abuse to the Court staff during Court hours, running after the Court staff sitting on their seats by leaving his dais and giving chase to the staff, and the staff had to save themselves by running from their seats to avoid being slapped and assaulted by the petitioner, etc.’, the court order said.