USHA DUBE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was appointed as Additional District & Sessions Judge in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services on probation, seeks to quash the order dated October 7, 1998 of the State of Rajasthan whereby services of the petitioner have been dispensed with.

(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that appointment of the petitioner on the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge was made for a period of two years vide order dated August 2, 1996 and this probation period was further extended upto October 9, 1998. The order which is under challenge reads as under:- "WHEREAS Smt. Usha Dubey was appointed by direct recruitment in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service as Additional District & Sessions Judge on probation for a period of two years vide Government Order No. F.19(1) (11) Jud/90 dated 02.8.96 and his probation period was subsequently extended upto 09-10-98 vide Government Order No. F.19(11)/90 dated 29.8.98. AND WHEREAS the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, after perusing all the relevant record, has resolved that Smt. Usha Dubey has not made sufficient use of his opportunities and has otherwise also failed to give satisfaction as a probationer in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. AND WHEREAS the Rajasthan High Court has recommended under Rule 26(1) of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 that the services of Smt. Usha Dubey be dispensed with, with effect from 09.10.98. NOW, therefore, the Governor of the State in consultation with the Rajasthan High Court is hereby pleased to dispense with the services of Smt. Usha Dubey with effect from the afternoon of 09.10.98 under Rule 26(1) of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969."

(3.) THE meaningful questions that arise for our consideration in the instant case are:-(i) In what circumstances the termination of a probationer services can be said to be founded on misconduct. (ii) Can an order of termination of probationer be said to contain an express stigma. (iii) Can the stigma be gathered from the allegations made against the probationer in answer to the challenge made by him/her.