PINKY MEENA V HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

Author: Anjir Solanki, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore

TO THE POINT

The Supreme Court in the landmark judgement emphasised the importance of gender equality, particularly for women in the judiciary. However, the 3-year mandatory practice before the Civil Judge appointment seems contradictory. The bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra, where Pinky Meena was the appellant and the Rajasthan High Court was the respondent. The Supreme Court reinstated Pinky Meena’s appeal by quashing the show cause notice and discharge order by the High Court. Also, it granted her consequential benefits/ notional pay fixation (seniority, future pay, retirement benefits, etc), excluding back wages when she was not in service, which is not always granted, which prevents a burden on the public exchequer. The Supreme Court also ensured that the inquiry to oust the appellant from service for simply “omitting” to reveal past employment was not properly conducted; it shouldn’t be the grounds to derail her meritorious career. 

ABSTRACT

This case dealt with the arbitrary dismissal of the appellant on May 29, 2020 (probationary civil judge), questioning procedural fairness and continuing the practice of common service law to exclude back wages. Here, the appellant was a candidate securing 4th rank in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category in the Rajasthan Judicial Service examination. A show cause notice was issued, and a discharge order was made against her by the High Court, which explained her defence. However, following the decision of the full court, she was deemed unsuitable due to irregularities in her academics and non-disclosure of her previous government job as a Grade II teacher. Subsequently, she filed a Writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, dismissed on August 24, 2023, and led her to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court considered the issue- 

1. Whether the appellant’s omission to disclose her job was justified for her removal from the Judicial service 
2. Whether Article 311 and principles of natural justice were violated here?

And found that the discharge order was “stigmatic”, she was not given a fair chance to represent herself as the inquiry was conducted behind her back. She completed her training with “flying colours”, the alleged misconduct for non-disclosure can’t be a ground for her dismissal. This judgment committed to uphold natural justice and fairness to safeguard the careers of those who protect.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Appellant was holding a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.), and Master of Legislative Laws degree (LLB) and (LLM). She commenced her teaching career on December 30, 2014, and resigned on October 25, 2018. She applied for the advertisement for the judiciary on November 18, 2017, where she cleared the prelims, mains, and interview stage. Her official appointment order was issued on February 11, 2019, joining as a trainee on March 6, 2019, and completing it on March 7, 2020. The High Court issued a show cause notice (SCN) on February 17, 2020, alleging on

Appearing in two main examinations of LLB and B.Ed., while pursuing both degrees simultaneously in the same year, through fraud, which is prohibited under Ordinance 168 A/B of the University of Rajasthan.

Holding the post of teacher with LLM, thereby creating fraudulent attendance and failure to obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the education department on resignation.

Concealing the job of teacher in the checklist during the interview and RJS appointment to both the High Court and the education department.

Then she gave her explanation on March 2, 2020, that

The LLB first-year examination is not considered a main examination upon interpretation of Ordinance 168 A 

She had resigned from her teaching position on October 25, 2018, before her RJS interview on November 2, 2018, which did not require explicit mention of past government service nor an obtainment of NOC before the exam, and LLM classes did not require regular physical attendance at her university.

The High Court conducted an inquiry despite a detailed reply to SCN behind her back, decided to discharge her from service for unsuitability as a probationer by issuing a discharge order dated May 29, 2020. And a Writ petition was filed by her on August 24, 2023, which was dismissed, then she filed an SLP.

LEGAL JARGONS

1. Nemo Judex In Causa Sua- it is a principle of natural justice, meaning “no one should be a judge in his own cause” – the deciding authority should be free from bias, neutral to ensure fairness

2. Audi Alteram Partem- it is a principle of natural justice, meaning “let the other side be heard,” which was violated in this case, where the inquiry on the appellant was conducted without her knowledge 

3. Show cause notice- a formal written communication issued by the government demanding that the alleged person explain why an adverse action shouldn’t be taken against them

4. Stigmatic order- the discharge order against appellant was found to be “stigmatic,” meaning it could harm her reputation and allegation of misconduct without due process.

5. Writ petition- Article 32 and 226 deal with a writ petition, which is an appeal to both the Supreme Court and the High Court involving a grave injustice, enforcing fundamental rights and judicial review against arbitrary decisions, where the former is narrower.

6. Special leave petition- Article 136 deals with SLP, which is discretionary and dealt with by the Supreme Court except military tribunals involving a substantial question of law, miscarriage of justice. 

7. Probationer- is a trainee evaluated by the employer to fill a permanent vacancy before assuming a civil judge position in this case.

8. Article 311- it is a provision for public servants for discharge, removal, reduction in rank, or job that is arbitrary.

9.  Ordinance 168 A/B University of Rajasthan- A rule in the University of Rajasthan to prohibit students from appearing in two “main exams” and that no degrees could be simultaneously pursued.

10. Rule 14, 44, 45, 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service- 14- barring a candidate for concealing material facts by improper means. 44- defines the tenure of the probation period, i.e., 2 years. 45- Confirmation of probationer’s service is contingent upon the full court’s decision. 46- The probation period can be extended, or the recruit can be discharged if found unsatisfactory 

PROOF

The Supreme Court’s examination quashed the SCN and discharge order, stating that procedural fairness was missing and the inquiry lacked transparency; the allegations should have been supported by proper conduct and followed principles of natural justice. Secondly, she had resigned before RJS’s appointment, for the same reason she didn’t have any criminal intention, but omitted to tell the facts, she was also suffering from lymphadenopathy tuberculosis. Thirdly, she had completed her training, reflecting her dedication, competency, which was stigmatic- that she was awarded capital punishment just for mere omission.

CASE LAWS

1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)- The Supreme Court held that the Governor, without arbitrariness, must act on the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers while executing. More importantly for service law, it held that if a probationer’s services are terminated on the grounds of misconduct, it amounts to a punitive dismissal.
2. State of Punjab and another v. Sukh Raj Bahadur (1968)- the reversion was indeed by way of punishment and amounted to either a reduction in rank or removal from service. Therefore, it held that the action could not be taken without affording him an adequate opportunity to show cause and without complying with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
3. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya (2021)- it firmly held that deliberately suppressing material facts, especially regarding a criminal conviction, and providing false declarations during the employment process, constitutes a valid ground for termination. 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court ruled in Pinky Meena v. High Court of Rajasthan that fairness and justice should be the most important things to think about when making any administrative decision, especially those that affect careers and reputations.

Pinky Meena, a probationary judicial officer, was removed from service without a proper investigation or a chance to defend herself. The Court declared this to be an obvious breach of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which safeguards public servants from arbitrary removal from service. It held that charges made before her judicial appointment, which her earlier employer had never pursued, could not be invoked to support her removal following successful training. More than just reinstating one officer, the judgment reinforces the need for due process, limits unchecked administrative power, and highlights the importance of gender equality and diversity in the judiciary. It sets a strong precedent for fairness, especially for those just beginning their public service journey.

FAQS

1. Why was the appellant discharged?

For alleged misconduct (like simultaneous degrees, LL.M. while teaching without permission) and, crucially, not disclosing her prior government job in her RJS application.

2.  Why did the Supreme Court overrule?

Because the discharge order was found to be stigmatic without a proper inquiry, violating principles of natural justice and Article 31.

3. Why were the wages for the past withheld?

Because of the “no work, no pay” principle, but restoring notional pay fixation (seniority, future pay, etc.)

4. Why is Article 311 used here?

It protects public servants from arbitrary decisions, it gives them the right to defend themselves. In this case, the inquiry was conducted without the appellant’s knowledge.

5. Is it possible to discharge a probationer before judicial appointment?

Yes, if found unsuitable. No inquiry is conducted, however, if the alleged reasons are punitive, stigmatic, then an inquiry is to be conducted.

SOURCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138980501/
2. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/principles-of-natural-justice/ 
3. https://indiankanoon.org/ 
4. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/ 
5. https://hcraj.nic.in/hcraj/Allfiles/The%20Rajasthan%20Judicial%20Service%20Rules,%202010%20as%20amended%20upto%2001.07.2021.pdf