Supreme Court Reinstates Rajasthan Judicial Officer Dismissed Over Alleged Concealment Of Govt Job

In a significant ruling today, the Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal filed by a former judicial magistrate from Rajasthan, who was dismissed from service over allegations of concealment of employment and academic impropriety.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma set aside the High Court's Full Court decision to terminate the Appellant from the judicial service in 2020, ordering her reinstatement to the service with the notional fixation of pay, except the backwages.

"It is further clarified that the respondent(High Court) shall take the appellant as to have successfully completed her probation period, and the appellant shall be treated as a confirmed employee.", the court directed.

The Appellant, Ms. Pinky Meena, belonging to Scheduled Tribe category, was initially appointed as a Teacher Grade-II in the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan on December 30, 2014. While serving in this role, she applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to an advertisement dated November 18, 2017. She was declared successful on November 4, 2018, and subsequently appointed as a Civil Judge and judicial Magistrate on February 11, 2019.

In February 2020, the Registrar (Vigilance) issued a show-cause notice to the Appellant, alleging that she failed to disclose her prior government teaching job in her RJS application and had pursued B.Ed. and LL.B. degrees simultaneously, contrary to university rules. It was also claimed she completed an LL.M. as a regular student while working.

The Appellant defended herself, stating she resigned from teaching before joining the judiciary due to illness and discontinued her B.Ed. once she learnt of the rules. Nonetheless, the Rajasthan High Court's Full Bench terminated her service in May 2020, prompting her to approach the Supreme Court.

Allowing her plea, the Court observed :

"In the present case, at the best, it can be held that there was an omission on the part of the appellant in informing the employer about her past government service. Further, a reasonable explanation has also been provided by the appellant regarding her past government service by stating that at the time of submission of check list, the appellant was not in government service and, therefore, in those circumstance, she was not required to mention the same. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant has been awarded capital punishment for a minor irregularity (omission)."

The Court held that the the order discharging the appellant from service violates principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not provided an opportunity to be heard during the enquiry that was required to be conducted.

Although a probationer need not be heard before dismissal, if the dismissal is on punitive or on grounds which can cause a stigma, there should be adherence to the principles of natural justice.

"Even though a probationer has no right to hold a post, it would not imply that the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution could be violated inasmuch as there cannot be any arbitrary or discriminatory discharge or an absence of application of mind in the matter of assessment of performance and consideration of relevant materials. Thus, in deciding whether, in a given case, a termination was by way of punishment or not, the courts have to look into the substance of the matter and not the form," the Court held.

Also from the judgment-  Greater Representation Of Women In Judiciary Will Improve Overall Quality Of Judicial Decision Making : Supreme Court

Case Title: Pinky Meena v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr., SLP(C) No. 23529/2023

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 610

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment