HIGH COURT OF H.P Vs. VEERTA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal by the HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT , through its Registrar General, is directed against the judgment dated 30th September, 2008, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.355 of 1997, whereby allowing the said Writ Petition, filed by respondent Veerta Verma, the order of her discharge from H.P. Judicial Service, during probation period, has been quashed and set aside and it has been directed that the said respondent shall be deemed to be in service, with all consequential benefits.

(2.) RELEVANT facts may be stated thus. Respondent Veerta Verma was appointed to Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service, vide Notification dated 26th July, 1995, issued in the name of Governor of Himachal Pradesh. She was posted as Sub Judge -cum -Judicial Magistrate at Mandi, vide notification dated 28th July, 1995, by the HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT . According to the notification of appointment, dated 26th July, 1995, Annexure P -1, her appointment was purely temporary and it was in accordance with sub -rule (I) of Rule 5, Part -III -C of Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1973, which says that an appointee to the service shall be on probation, initially for a period of two years and this period may be extended by another two years. Respondent Veerta Verma was discharged vide Notification dated 20th September, 1997, Annexure P -3, on the ground that she had not completed her probation period satisfactorily. She challenged the order, alleging that the action of the High Court and the Governor in discharging her from service was arbitrary and discriminatory, inasmuch as another Officer, namely Dr. Baldev Singh, against whom an enquiry with regard to serious allegations of misconduct was pending, had not been discharged from service and his period of probation was extended by one year but she had been discharged simply for the reason that a police case had been registered against her and sanction to prosecute her in that case had been accorded by the High Court.

(3.) LEARNED Single Judge has compared the merit of respondent Veerta Verma with that of Dr. Baldev Singh, who was appointed to the Judicial Service by the same notification as respondent Veerta Verma, i.e. Anneuxre P -1, on the basis of confidential reports and held that her performance was in no way inferior to that of Dr. Baldev Singh and, therefore, if Dr. Baldev Singh, against whom enquiry for serious allegations of misconduct was pending, could have been retained in service by extension of his probation period, the act of the High Court in recommending discharge of respondent Veerta Verma is discriminatory. Although, it has been held by the learned Single Judge that Annexure P -3 is an order of discharge simpliciter and does not contain any stigma or stigmatic comments, yet on lifting the veil by way of looking into the record of proceedings, which led to the passing of the resolution for the discharge of respondent Veerta Verma, it is clear that the sole basis for her discharge was the fact that a case had been registered against her and on completion of investigation sanction had also been accorded by the High Court for her prosecution and that this amounted to the indictment of the said respondent, without trial. Learned Single Judge has observed that the High Court should have waited for the verdict of the trial, before recommending the discharge of respondent Veerta Verma from service.