Probationary judicial officer termination cannot rest on vague complaints or unproved adverse material without proper disciplinary .

A probationary judicial officer's termination was held unsustainable because it rested on complaints, an inquiry report that did not record a definite finding of misconduct, and other material that was either unsubstantiated or later found unwarranted. The court noted that vague, motivated, or unproved allegations cannot justify dispensing with the services of a probationer in judicial service, particularly where the officer's judicial orders had been upheld on merits. If adverse action was contemplated, the proper course was disciplinary proceedings with an opportunity to explain. The termination order was set aside, with reinstatement, continuity of service, back wages, and consequential benefits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the termination of a probationary judicial officer's services was sustainable when it was founded on complaints, an inquiry report that did not record a definite adverse finding, and material that was either irrelevant, unsubstantiated, or later shown to be unsustainable.

Analysis: The appellant was a probationer in the superior judicial service and his services were dispensed with on the footing that his work and conduct were unsatisfactory. The material relied upon included complaints from members of the Bar and litigants, an inquiry by a vigilance judge, and the confidential roll. The inquiry report did not conclude that the appellant was guilty of corrupt motive or misconduct; at most, some matters were said to require further investigation, while other complaints disclosed no impropriety. The adverse judicial remarks relied upon against the appellant were later held unwarranted and expunged. The confidential entry for the relevant period was not shown to be supported by material, and the adverse modification of a favourable entry was unsustainable. A probationary judicial officer cannot be terminated on the basis of vague, motivated, or unproved allegations, especially where the High Court itself had upheld the officer's judicial orders on the merits and where the proper course, if any adverse action was contemplated, was disciplinary proceedings affording an opportunity to explain.

Conclusion: The termination was not justified and the appellant succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The order dispensing with the appellant's services was set aside and he was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages, and consequential benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The services of a probationary judicial officer cannot be terminated on the basis of complaints or inquiry material that does not furnish a definite, relevant, and substantiated adverse foundation; if adverse allegations are to be relied upon, they must be established through appropriate proceedings.

---