SARITA CHOUDHARY v. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER

Citation: 2025 INSC 289, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1456

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Judgment text

High Court of Madhya Pradesh Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another [2025] 2 S. C. R. 1456 : 2025 INSC 289 Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 142 of 2024) 28 February 2025 [B. V. Nagarathna* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of order passed by the High Court terminating two women Judicial Officers from service during probation period; and whether the cessation of services of two Judicial Officers is punitive, arbitrary and thus, contrary to law.

Headnotes† Judiciary - Subordinate judiciary - Judicial officers - Termination from service during probation - Six women Judicial Officers terminated on the recommendation of the Administrative Committee of High Court on the ground of low disposal rate of cases and alleged performance issue - Supreme Court, in a suo moto writ petition, requested the Full Court of the High Court to reconsider the termination order - Consequently, only four officers reinstated - Two other officerspetitioners due to low grades in ACRs, low unit value, and complaints regarding management and interpersonal skills, terminated from service during probation - Challenge to - High Court did not deem proper to reinstate the petitioners - Correctness: Held: ACRs which were adverse in nature were either not communicated in time and even after an explanation was received, no effort to expunge the adverse remarks made in the said ACRs on the basis of a consideration of the explanation, they were simply rejected - Reference to the consistent "poor performance" not in accordance with the record, the record speaks otherwise - Inherent contradictions in the ACRs - 'Other material'- complaints were either concluded or pending against them - If the complaints formed the foundation for these officers to be terminated, an opportunity had * Author Sarita Choudhary v.

High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another to be given before termination having regard to Art.

311 read with relevant Conduct Rules - Termination of the two judicial officers is punitive, arbitrary and thus, illegal - Terminations were by way of punishment as the surrounding circumstances show that the terminations were, inter alia, founded on the allegations of the complaints of misconduct and "inefficiency" and were stigmatic in nature - Even though many of the complaints against these officers may have been closed or resulted in advisories/warnings, they could not have been the basis for the impugned terminations - Resolutions of the Administrative Committee followed by the Resolution of the Full Court, orders of the High Court and the Government Orders insofar as the two officers, illegal and contrary to the established principles of law and, liable to be set-aside - Thus, the termination orders vis-a-vis the petitioners set aside including the Resolution and the order/letter of the High Court, order of the State Government and all consequential adverse orders, if any - Petitioners reinstated in their service with all consequential benefits - Constitution of India - Art.

311 - Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 - r. 11(c). [Paras 16, 16.

1, 18] Service law - Probation - Services of a probationer - When, non-stigmatic termination: Held: Services of a probationer could result either in a confirmation in the post or ended by way of termination simpliciter - However, if a probationer is terminated from service owing to a misconduct as a punishment, the termination would cause a stigma on him - If a probationer is unsuitable for a job and has been terminated then such a case is non-stigmatic as it is a termination simpliciter - Thus, the performance of a probationer has to be considered in order to ascertain whether it has been satisfactory or unsatisfactory - If the performance of a probationer has been unsatisfactory, he is liable to be terminated by the employer without conducting any inquiry - No right of hearing is reserved with the probationer and hence, there would be no violation of principles of natural justice in such a case - Test is, whether, in a given case the termination is simpliciter or by way of punishment - Even though a probationer has no right to hold a post, it would not imply that the mandate of Arts.

14 and 16 of the Constitution could be violated inasmuch as there cannot be any arbitrary or discriminatory discharge or 1458 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 to look into the substance of the matter and not the form - Constitution of India - Arts 14, 16. [Paras 12, 12.

3] Gender justice - Women in Indian judiciary - Role in promoting gender equality - Prevention of discrimination during pregnancy and maternity - Consequences of miscarriage - Elucidation: Held: There has been entry of women into the legal profession, the retention of women and growth of their numbers in the profession, and the advancement of women to senior echelons of the profession - Greater representation of women in the judiciary, would improve the overall quality of judicial decision making - Advancing women's greater participation in the judiciary also plays a role in promoting gender equality - Freedom from discrimination or equal protection of the laws during pregnancy and maternity of a woman are precious rights for women workforce - If pregnancy results in the birth of a child, it brings not only joy to the parents of the child but also sense of fulfilment to the young mother - On the other hand, a pregnancy miscarriage has deep physical, mental and psychological aftereffects on a woman - Though there is varying amount of physical aftereffects, the psychological and social effects may be more severe and long lasting - Miscarriage affects a person's identity, leading to disappointments and challenges to motherhood identity and role, stigma and isolation, amongst other aspects - It is not enough to find comfort solely in the growing number of female judicial officers if a sensitive work environment and guidance cannot be secured for them - High Court erred in acting agnostic to, inter alia, claims of insubordination of petitioner-S and acute medical and emotional conditions battled by petitioner-A - Despite still reeling from the effects of a severe case of Covid-19 and a miscarriage, the ACR for 2021 of petitioner-A was downgraded by the Portfolio Judge from 'B-Very Good' to 'C-Good' only considering 'pendency and disposal' - While gender is not a rescue for poor performance but it is a critical consideration which must weigh for holistic decision-making at certain times and stages of a woman judicial officer.

[Paras 17-17. 4, 17. 7] Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another Case Law Cited Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India [1984] 2 SCR 453 : (1984) 2 SCC 369; Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basis Sciences, Calcutta [1999] 1 SCR 532 : (1999) 3 SCC 60; Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2024] 8 SCR 901 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139; Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat v. Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti [2013] 11 SCR 395 : (2013) 16 SCC 59; Khem Chand v. Union of India [1958] SCR 1080; Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences [2001] Supp. 5 SCR 41 : (2002) 1 SCC 520; Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U. P [2000] 3 SCR 529 : (2000) 5 SCC 152; Amar Singh v. Union of India [2011] 6 SCR 403 : (2011) 7 SCC 69; Dr. Vijayakumaran CPV v. Central University of Kerala & Ors. [2020] 3 SCR 374 : (2020) 12 SCC 426; State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra [1971] 2 SCR 191 : (1970) 2 SCC 871; Samsher Singh v.

State of Punjab [1975] 1 SCR 814 : (1974) 2 SCC 831 : AIR 1974 SC 2192; Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 75 : AIR 1964 SC 449; Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India [1958] SCR 828 : AIR 1958 SC 36; Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India (2009) 16 SCC 146; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited v. Tarun Kanti Sengupta [1986] 2 SCR 178 : (1986) 3 SCC 156; Ishwar Chand Jain v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana [1988] Supp. 1 SCR 396 : (1988) 3 SCC 370; High Court of Madhya Pradesh v. Satya Narayan Jhavar [2001] Supp. 1 SCR 532 : (2001) 7 SCC 161; Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Secondary School v. JAJ Vasu Sena [2019] 12 SCR 881 : (2019) 17 SCC 157; Rajasthan High Court v. Ved Priya [2020] 4 SCR 971 : (2021) 13 SCC 151; High Court of Judicature at Patna v. Pandey Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha (1997) 10 SCC 409; Satya Narayan Athya v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh [1995] Supp. 5 SCR 679 : (1996) 1 SCC 560; Rajesh Kohli v.

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir [2010] 11 SCR 699 : (2010) 12 SCC 783; Registrar, High Court of Gujarat v. CG Sharma [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 77 : (2005) 1 SCC 132; Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand [2011] 3 SCR 823 : (2011) 4 SCC 447; Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore v. Dr. Pandurang Godwalkar [1992] Supp. 2 SCR 250: (1992) 4 SCC 719; Arundhati Ashok Walavalkar v. State of Maharashtra [2011] 1 SCR 355 : (2011) 11 SCC 324; Ram Murti Yadav v. State of U. P. [2019] 14 SCR 818 : (2020) 1 SCC 801; Kazia Mohammed Muzzammil v. State of Karnataka [2010] 1460 7 SCR 1061 : (2010) 8 SCC 155; State of Bihar v. Gopi Kishore Prasad, AIR 1960 SC 689; Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation [2007] 10 SCR 1124 : (2007) 10 SCC 71; Indra Pal Gupta v. Managing Committee, Model Inter College, Thora [1984] 3 SCR 752 : (1984) 3 SCC 384; Hindustan Paper Corpn. v. Purnendu Chakrobarty & Ors. [1996] Supp.

8 SCR 159 : (1996) 11 SCC 404; Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Dr Md. S. Iskender Ali [1980] 3 SCR 603 : (1980) 3 SCC 428; Principal, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research, Pondicherry v. S. Andel & Ors. (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 609; Oswal Pressure Die Casting Industry, Faridabad v. Presiding Officer (1998) 3 SCC 225; Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya [2020] 3 SCR 833 :(2020) 7 SCC 469; Nitisha v. Indian Army (2021) 15 SCC 125 - referred to.

Books and Periodicals Cited V Klier, P Geller and J Ritsher, 'Affective Disorders in the Aftermath of Miscarriage: A Comprehensive Review' (2002) 5 Archives of Women's Mental Health 129-149; Siobhan Quenby and others, 'Miscarriage Matters: The Epidemiological, Physical, Psychological, and Economic Costs of Early Pregnancy Loss' (2021) The Lancet, May; P Gerber-Epstein, RD Leichtentritt and Y Benyamini, 'The Experience of Miscarriage in First Pregnancy: The Women's Voices' (2008) 33(1) Death Studies 1-29; OB Van den Akker, 'The Psychological and Social Consequences of Miscarriage' (2011) 6(3) Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 295 - referred to. List of Acts Constitution of India; Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.

List of Keywords Termination of Judicial Officers; Women judicial officers; Probation; Reinstatement in service; Administrative Committee of the High Court; Trainee judge; Vacant court; Full Court; Failure to meet unit criteria; ACR; Inappropriate behaviour with advocates; Not taking interest in judicial work; Procedural lapses by trainee judge; Failed to monitor sensitive/suspicious files; Global pandemic COVID-19; Annual Inspection report; Judge not recording statement of complainant; Cordial relations between bar and bench; Portfolio Sarita Choudhary v.

High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another judge; Creating influence on police; Releasing dogs behind complainant; Unnecessary comments against advocate out of animosity; Inappropriate post on social media; Adverse remark; Stigmatic termination; Non-stigmatic termination; Pendency and disposal of cases; Unit value for criminal cases; Principal Registrar (Vigilance); Punitive termination; Substantive appointee; Non- communication of adverse remarks; Unsatisfactory performance of probationer; Arbitrary or discriminatory discharge; Interpersonal skills; Managerial skills; Court management; Conduct of business in court and office; Permission to take criminal action against judicial officer; Entry of women in legal profession; Promoting gender equality; Gender stereotypes; Women's representation in judiciary; Discrimination against women; Right to work; Right to equal treatment; Equal protection of laws during pregnancy and maternity; Psychological consequences of miscarriage; Obstetrics complications; Insidious patriarchal system; Sensitive work environment for female judicial officers; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979.

Case Arising From CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 142 of 2024 (Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India) With Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 2 of 2023 and Writ Petition (C) No. 233 of 2024 Appearances for Parties By Courts Motion. Advs. for the Petitioner: Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, Sumeer Sodhi. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Indira Jaising, R Basant, Sr. Advs. , Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Arjun Garg, Ms. Kriti Gupta, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Brahma Prakash Soni, Ms. Christi Jain, Mann Arora, Ms. Akriti Sharma, Harsh Jain, Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Ojusya Joshi, Prem Prakash, Sumeer Sodhi, Varun Tankha, Prasang Sharma, Sadeeq Ur Rahman, Ms. Sandali Sharma, Bhanwar Pal Singh 1462 Jadon, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, L C Patne, Gulab Sharma, Hitesh Sharma, Raghav Pandey, Ms. Sharmishtha Chaudhury, Ms. Charu Mathur, Gaurav Agrawal. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Nagarathna, J.

INDEX* Introduction: ................................................................................ 3 Genesis of the Controversy: ...................................................... 3 Factual Backdrop: ....................................................................... 11 Re: Sarita Choudhary - W. P. (C) 142/2024: ....................... 11 Re: Aditi Kumar Sharma - W. P. (C) No. 233/2024: ............ 24 Submissions of learned Amicus Curiae - Sri Gaurav Aggarwal, 33 Senior Advocate: ......................................................................... Re: Sarita Choudhary: ........................................................ 33 Re: Aditi Kumar Sharma: ................................................... 38 Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-Sarita Choudhary: ... 42 Submissions on behalf of Petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma: ... 45 Submissions on behalf of the Respondent-High Court: .........

60 Points for Consideration: ........................................................... 71 Discussion: ................................................................................... 76 Analysis: ....................................................................................... 90 Re: Sarita Choudhary: ......................................................... 90 Re: Aditi Kumar Sharma: .................................................... 101 Women Workforce: Women in the Indian Judiciary: .............. 118 Conclusion: ................................................................................... 123 * Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment. Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another Introduction: The careers of two women Judicial Officers out of six have to be decided in these writ petitions filed by them as well as in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2023.

Out of six women Judicial Officers who were terminated from service during their probation period, four Judicial Officers have been reinstated pursuant to the resolution of the Full Court of the respondent-Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 01. 08. 2024 on certain terms. However, insofar as two Judicial Officers, namely, Ms. Sarita Choudhary and Ms. Aditi Kumar Sharma, there has been no revocation of the earlier resolution and consequently, their termination under challenge in these writ petitions have to be decided by this Court. Genesis of the Controversy: 2. On 23. 05. 2023, six women Judicial Officers serving in the State of Madhya Pradesh (Civil Judges, Junior Division) were terminated on the recommendation of the Administrative Committee of High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Earlier that month, the Administrative Committees of the High Court had met on 08. 05. 2023 and 10. 05. 2023 for shortlisting of officers for confirmation of judicial officers on probation.

The shortlist were then recommended to the Full Court of the High Court for confirmation. On 13. 05. 2023, the High Court issued an order confirming a list of 403 Judicial Officers and recommending termination of services, inter alia, of the petitioners herein. On the basis of the aforesaid order issued by the High Court, the termination order(s) in respect of, inter alia, the petitioners herein were passed on 23. 05. 2023, thereby, discharging the petitioners from their duties. 2. 1 On 02. 09. 2023, three women Judicial Officers of the District Judiciary of the State of Madhya Pradesh made a representation to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India alleging their termination from service as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (for short, "Recruitment Rules"). Upon considering the said representation, Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, by an administrative Order dated 11. 11.

2023, directed that the matter be registered by way of a suo moto writ petition in respect of all six women judicial officers who were terminated from service. 1464 2. 2 By the time the matter was registered on 07. 12. 2023, one of the Judicial Officers, Ms. Sonakshi Joshi, had filed Writ Petition (C) No. 849/2023 before this Court invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India. However, by Order dated 22. 08. 2023, she withdrew the said writ petition with liberty to secure relief from the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Similarly, three other Officers, namely, (1) Ms. Rachna Atulkar Joshi; (2) Ms. Jyoti Varkade; and (3) Ms. Priya Sharma, who had also filed Writ Petition (C) Nos. 1325, 1339 and 1357 of 2023 respectively under Article 32 withdrew their writ petitions with liberty to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide order dated 08. 12. 2023. 2.

3 However, as these four petitioners, who withdrew their writ petitions from this Court, were not aware of the fact that this Court had registered Suo Moto Writ Petition as Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India had already taken cognizance of their grievance, we found it just that notice must be issued to them in the suo motu writ petition. 2. 4 On 23. 07. 2024, this Court had requested the Full Court of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to reconsider the termination of the six women judicial officers. Pursuant to our order dated 23. 07. 2024, the Full Court of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh re-considered its earlier resolutions and orders impugned in the suo motu writ petition as well as the other writ petitions, and consequently, in its 530th Full Court Meeting held on 01. 08. 2024, four officers, namely, Smt. Jyoti Varkade, Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, Sushri Priya Sharma, and Smt. Rachna Atulkar Joshi were considered for reinstatement.

However, there was no quietus to the controversy qua two other officers namely, Sushri Sarita Choudhary and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma as the Full Court of the High Court did not deem it proper to reinstate them. For ease of reference, the extract of the Minutes of 530th Full Court Meeting dated 01. 08. 2024 at 5. 00 P. M are extracted as follows: - "xxx SUB NO. 01. Consideration of the matter relating to termination of 06 Civil Judges, Junior Division of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service. Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ (C) No. 2/2023 in Re: Termination of Civil Judge, Junior Division has been pleased to pass following order on 23. 07.

2024: - "Learned senior counsel and Amicus Curiae submitted that although earlier, the concerned Committee had reviewed the matter and had reiterated its earlier resolution, nevertheless, the Full Court of the High Court could reconsider the matter and depending upon its resolutions, further consideration of these matters could be taken up. In the circumstances, we request the Full Court of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to reconsider its resolutions and orders impugned in these suo moto writ petition and other writ petitions filed by the parties. On a reconsideration by Full Court of the High Court, a copy of the resolution could be placed before this Court by learned counsel for the respondent-High Court preferably within a period of four weeks from today".

In view of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Full Court considered the matter and resolves that the termination of following 04 Civil Judges, Junior Division be revoked with a condition that they be posted as Civil Judge, Junior Division with a probation period of one year without backwages and they be placed at the bottom of their respective batch. They will regain their original seniority subject to their confirmation. xxx Full Court also considered the matter of Sushri Sarita Choudhary, the then II-Civil Judge Junior Division, Umaria and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma, the then V-Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tikamgarh. After considering their ACRs Gradings, Disposal Statistics, 1466 Adverse Remarks, complaints made against them and their overall performance, Full Court is of the view that the termination of Sushri Sarita Choudhary and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma cannot be revoked. In view thereof Full Court resolves to reiterate its earlier resolution dated 11. 05.

2023 in respect of Sushri Sarita Choudhary and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma. Full Court further resolves to place adverse remarks and other material against them before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a sealed cover. " 2. 5 In these circumstances, the lis in respect of the four officers stood closed and present adjudication remains only in respect of petitioner-Sarita Choudhary and petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma. For immediate reference, our order dated 03. 09. 2024 extracted as under: "SMW(C) No. 2/2023 Pursuant to our order dated 23. 07. 2024, the Full Court of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has re-considered its earlier resolutions and orders impugned in the suo motu writ petition as well as other writ petitions filed by the respective petitioners which is evident by Minutes dated 01. 08. 2024 of 530th Full Court Meeting held on the said date. The following four officers, namely, Smt. Jyoti Varkade, Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, Sushri Priya Sharma and Smt.

Rachna Atulkar Joshi have been considered for reinstatement subject to certain terms and conditions. Insofar as two other officers are concerned, namely, Sushri Sarita Choudhary and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma, there is no revocation of the earlier orders and resolutions and the Full Court has also further resolved to place the adverse remarks and other materials against them before this Court in a sealed cover. For ease of reference, the extract of the Minutes of 530th Full Court Meeting dated 01. 08. 2024 at 5. 00 P. M is extracted as follows: - "xxx Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another SUB NO. 01. Consideration of the matter relating to termination of 06 Civil Judges, Junior Division of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ (C) No. 2/2023 in Re: Termination of Civil Judge, Junior Division has been pleased to pass following order on 23. 07.

2024:- "Learned senior counsel and Amicus Curiae submitted that although earlier, the concerned Committee had reviewed the matter and had reiterated its earlier resolution, nevertheless, the Full Court of the High Court could reconsider the matter and depending upon its resolutions, further consideration of these matters could be taken up. In the circumstances, we request the Full Court of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to reconsider its resolutions and orders impugned in these suo moto writ petition and other writ petitions filed by the parties. On a reconsideration by Full Court of the High Court, a copy of the resolution could be placed before this Court by learned counsel for the respondent-High Court preferably within a period of four weeks from today".

In view of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Full Court considered the matter and resolves that the termination of following 04 Civil Judges, Junior Division be revoked with a condition that they be posted as Civil Judge, Junior Division with a probation period of one year without backwages and they be placed at the bottom of their respective batch. They will regain their original seniority subject to their confirmation. 1468 Sr. Name of the Officers whose termination is No. to be revoked 1. Smt. Jyoti Varkade, the then CJ, Jr. Division, Timarni [Harda] 2. Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, the then V AJ To I CJ, Jr. Division, Morena 3. Sushri Priya Sharma, the then I CJ, Jr. Division, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar [Indore] 4. Smt. Rachna Atulkar Joshi, the then II CJ, Jr. Division, Teonthar [Rewa] Full Court also considered the matter of Sushri Sarita Choudhary, the then II Civil Judge Junior Division, Umaria and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma, the then V Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tikamgarh.

After considering their ACRs Gradings, Disposal Statistics, Adverse Remarks, complaints made against them and their overall performance, Full Court is of the view that the termination of Sushri Sarita Choudhary and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma cannot be revoked. In view thereof Full Court resolves to reiterate its earlier resolution dated 11. 05. 2023 in respect of Sushri Sarita Choudhary and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma. Full Court further resolves to place adverse remarks and other material against them before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a sealed cover. " Learned senior counsel Shri R Basant, appearing for the aforesaid three officers, namely, Smt. Jyoti Varkade, Sushri Priya Sharma and Smt. Rachna Atulkar Joshi submitted that these officers have no grievance with regard to the resolution passed as such. The submission regarding payment of salary from the date of termination till reinstatement is rejected.

Shri R Basant, learned senior counsel urged that the High Court may issue orders as expeditiously Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another as possible and within a period of four weeks from today so that the aforesaid officers on reinstatement may join their duties. In the circumstances, the lis in suo motu writ petition in respect of the four officers stand closed. Ms. Tanvi Dubey, learned counsel, who appeared for Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, also submitted that her client has accepted the aforesaid resolution. It is needless to observe that these officers on regaining their original seniority as stated above, shall be granted continuity in service and all consequential benefits except back wages. Insofar as Sushri Sarita Choudhary and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma are concerned, the Full Court has stated that Resolutions and Orders passed as against them cannot be revoked.

We appreciate the assistance rendered by learned senior counsel and learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel who have appeared for the respective parties and particularly Shri Arjun Garg, who has appeared for the High Court. List the matter on 24. 09. 2024 to hear regarding the case of other two judicial officers. " 3. We find it necessary to briefly enumerate the facts relevant to the career trajectory and service details of the two petitioners and other necessary facts relevant to the present adjudication. Factual Backdrop: Re: Sarita Choudhary - W. P. (C) 142/2024: 3. 1 By Order Fa. No. 3(B)3/2015/21-B(One), issued in December 2016, the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs of the respondent-State appointed the Petitioner in W. P. (C) 142/2024 to the post of Civil Judge Class-II (Entry Level) in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service on probation of two years from the 1470 date she assumed charge. On 25. 01.

2017, the said petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge, Class-2 on probation for two years. Her initial positing as a trainee Judge was at Raisen, Madhya Pradesh. For this period, the petitioner has drawn our attention to the fact that for her first year as a trainee judge i. e. for the period from 25. 01. 2017 to 31. 12. 2017, the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) was initially graded by the District Judge as "good" or "very good" and "satisfactory" on all parameters. However, subsequently the Portfolio Judge converted the grading to C (good). A perusal of the ACR reveals that explicitly no shortcomings were found despite the fact that an adverse entry was later communicated to the petitioner on 28. 08. 2018. 3. 2 In the following year, on 05. 02. 2018, High Court transferred the petitioner to Shajapur as First Civil Judge Class-II on independent charge in the regular vacant court. Her ACR for the period from 01. 01. 2018 to 31. 12.

2018 recorded a final grade of 'B-Very Good' and also noted that she had good conduct, was sincere and polite, and her judicial work was good in both quantity as well as quality. Pertinent to note is that in this time period, she earned a total of 1233. 96 units within 220 standard working days; however, her civil units earned stood at 83. 05. 3. 3 We note that during the aforesaid time period, the petitioner was posted in a vacant court, which understandably does not see a high disposal rate in civil matters as Judicial Officers are required to re-initiate and kickstart the entire machinery of civil suits, sometimes from the issuance of notice(s). 3. 4 Notably, her ACR for the period 01. 01. 2019 to 31. 12. 2019 carried a demoted graded of 'C-Good'. However, she was still reported to display good conduct of business in court and in office.

It was argued by learned counsel for the respondentHigh Court that this degrading was due to three complaints that were filed against the petitioner in the year 2019. These complaints alleged that the petitioner had failed to conduct proceedings as per law, and in a criminal case even passed an order despite pendency of counter cases. Learned Amicus and learned senior counsel for the petitioner highlighted that Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another despite the number or nature of these complaints, it was considered just by the Chief Justice of the High Court to close all three complaints simply with warnings to the petitioner. She was noted to be an average judicial officer as far as sincerity and punctuality were concerned and her quality of judgment was appreciated to be good. Despite a nearly threefold jump in units earned from 83. 05 to 234. 15, she had failed to earn the prescribed civil units.

It is pertinent to consider that the ACR noted as improvable her management, initiative, planning, relations with advocates, staff and colleague judicial officers. In our view, equally relevant is a letter that was issued to the petitioner on 27. 11. 2020 stating that the remarks in the ACR for the year 2019 were only advisory in nature and meant for future guidance. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Sri Basant contended that this Court must be alive to the fact that despite some complaints - which were closed with only warnings - the ACR of the petitioner observed her as a good judicial officer and all the adverse remarks were admittedly only advisory in nature. 3. 5 Petitioner-Ms. Sarita Choudhary was then transferred to Goharganj (Raisen) as 2nd Civil Judge, where she joined on 25. 11. 2019. A perusal of her ACR for the period from 01. 01. 2020 to 31. 12. 2020 reflects that she was graded 'D i. e. Average'.

Furthermore, her ACR noted that her conduct of business was not satisfactory as she lacked effective control over staff and did not take initiative to clear pending cases. The petitioner was recorded to have failed to achieve her unit criteria and also lacked in punctuality, seriousness, transparency, and quality in judicial work, cordiality with staff and advocates, and team work. Two complaints were also filed against the petitioner in 2020 for lack of punctuality and in respect of an error made by the petitioner whilst granting bail in a non-bailable offence. Perusal of material on record shows that both of these complaints were met with warnings from the Chief Justice and finally closed. Adverse remarks made in the ACR were replied to by the petitioner through a representation. 3. 6 After completion of three years of probation, the petitioner's case was considered for confirmation by the Administrative 1472 Committee of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 24. 07.

2020, but the same was deferred in view of the pending complaints. 3. 7 It is also necessary to note that in March 2020, in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic, the unit criteria - a quantitative metric used to assess performance of Judicial Officers applicable to District Judiciary including Family Courts in Madhya Pradesh, was suspended from 16. 03. 2020 till 31. 03. 2020. As the continuing nature of the pandemic revealed itself, the unit criteria was eventually suspended till 31. 12. 2020. Pertinent to note is that throughout 2020, several circulars had been issued by Madhya Pradesh High Court regulating the limited functioning of the District Judiciary. It was only on 11. 12. 2020 that the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued directions to start regular but limited physical functioning in District Courts. 3. 8 For the following year being 01. 01. 2021 to 31. 12. 2021, her ACR grade again witnessed a decline to 'E - Poor'.

It was noted that the judicial work of the officer was not up to the mark. Although she was noted to be efficient and had good grasp over the subject of law, the assessing officer recorded that she lacked sincerity and did not fulfil her administrative tasks. It was noted that she failed to meet her unit criteria. While she disposed of 124 cases pending for more than three years, achieved 756. 5 units, and also achieved 122 units through ADR, it was noted that she failed to dispose of even a single contested civil case. Upon comparing this ACR to the year prior, it will be seen that the ACR noted that she had good personal relationships and good team work. This finding in the ACR merits consideration as it finds place despite two complaints filed in 2021 alleging misbehaviour with colleagues, advocates, staff, parties/witness/ prosecution. Pertinently, both complaints were closed with advisories to the petitioner from the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court. 3.

9 Our attention was drawn to the improvement of her ACR for the period from 01. 01. 2022 to 31. 12. 2022. This ACR assigned to petitioner was a significant improvement from 'E - Poor' to grade 'C - Good'. It was noted that her understanding of law and application in her judgments was appropriate and well- reasoned. Her ability to efficiently dispose of the cases was seen as reflective of her good legal knowledge. Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another 3. 10 Per contra, it was highlighted that several complaints were filed against the petitioner in 2022. (i) Complaint No. 81/2022 dt. 12. 01. 2022 alleged procedural lapses and inappropriate behaviour with advocates, parties or witnesses. Vide Order dt. 22. 03. 2023, the Chief Justice of the High Court warned the petitioner to be careful in future and to ensure that lapses should not be repeated. (ii) Similar was the outcome of Complaint No. 877/2022 dt. 29. 09.

2022 which was filed alleging misbehaviour by petitioner in RCT No. 310/2019, titled "State vs. Kanhaiya Lal". (iii) However, in respect of 2022, one Complaint bearing No. 992/2022 (21. 12. 2022) wherein it was alleged that petitioner failed to monitor 321 sensitive/suspicious files/ cases and keep track of those files, the file was kept in abeyance by order dated 28. 06. 2023 of the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner highlighted that 321 suspicious cases were indeed discovered in an almirah (cabinet/storage) in the court room but those cases were related to predecessor judges. A departmental inquiry was conducted targeting the clerical staff involved, and one specific staff member D. R. Ahirwar at position Execution Clerk was identified and found guilty of dereliction of duty. 3. 11 During her posting at Raisen, the petitioner failed to achieve unit criteria as she achieved only 3. 36 units per day.

Similarly, petitioner failed to achieve the target on civil side as she achieved only 30. 80 units. However, out of 25 targeted old cases, the petitioner successfully disposed of 100% cases. 3. 12 Dissecting and inferring from these facts, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the fact that the latest ACR immediately before her termination in 2023 had in fact noted her to be a 'Good' judicial officer and even observed that she had good decisive nature, managerial skill, and that she maintained good relationships in the team. 3. 13 Soon thereafter, on 10. 04. 2023, Ms. Sarita Choudhary was again transferred to Umaria as 2nd Civil Judge, Junior 1474 Division. Only a month thereafter, on 13. 05. 2023, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recommended termination of services of the petitioner. This was followed by Termination Order dt. 23. 05. 2023 which was received by petitioner on 26. 05. 2023. Surprisingly, on 09. 10. 2023 i. e.

several months after her termination, adverse remarks made in petitioner's ACR for the year 2021 were communicated to the Judicial Officer. 3. 14 For ease of reference, relevant information pertaining to Petitioner-Sarita Choudhary are tabulated hereunder: ACR GRADING TABLE PERIOD GRADE 25. 01. 2017 to 31. 12. 2018 C- Good 01. 01. 2018 to 31. 12. 2018 B- Very Good 01. 01. 2019 to 31. 12. 2019 C-Good 01. 01. 2020 to 31. 12. 2020 D-Average 01. 01. 2021 to 31. 12. 2021 E-Poor 01. 01. 2022 to 31. 12. 2022 C-Good UNIT VALUE YEAR VALUE 2017 Trainee Judge 2018 7. 11 2019 8. 53 2020 3. 72 Learned Amicus emphasized before this Court that for the pre-Covid period, her unit value was 9. 3 as per page 73 of reply. 2021 6. 47 2022 3. 36 (3. 64 as per page 108 of reply) Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another LIST OF COMPLAINTS S. COMPLAINT COMPLAINT ACTION NO NO. & DATE 1 26/2019 dt. In Case Complaint disposed 10. 01. 2019 No. 369/2016, titled of by Hon'ble Chief "Vipin Bedle vs.

Justice by order Rajesh Malviya" dated 25. 01. 2020. the petitioner did not proceed as per law 2 311/2019 dt. Cases not Warning by Hon'ble 24. 04. 2019 & conducted as per Chief Justice 407/2019 dt. law vide order dated 07. 06. 2019 19. 09. 2021. 3 408/2019 dt. No. 1501281/2016 Non-recordable 07. 06. 2019 (State of MP vs. Warning dated Umaravlal)- Passed 19. 09. 2021 by orders in Cr. Non- Hon'ble Chief recordable Case Justice. despite counter cases are pending adjudication. 2020 4 354/2020 dt. Remained not Advised not to leave 24. 07. 2020 punctual despite the headquarters repeated warnings without prior permission and to sit on the dais on time and not to leave the dais before court working hours vide order dated 28. 01. 2023 by Hon'ble Chief Justice. 1476 S. COMPLAINT COMPLAINT ACTION NO NO. & DATE 5 495/2020 dt. Granted bail in Warned to remain 09. 10.

2020 a non-bailable careful and vigilant offence and making in future while alteration in the passing the bail order sheet orders and not to repeat the mistake as committed by her while passing bail order for offence u/s 304 IPC in Crime No. 122/2020 of PS Obedullaganj, vide order 14. 02. 2023 by Hon'ble Chief Justice. 2021 6 127/2021 dt. Misbehaviour File the complaint 24. 02. 2021 towards colleagues with an advice to Ms. and seniors Sarita Choudhary that she mend her behavior towards her seniors and should remain careful in future, vide order dated 03. 08. 2022 by Hon'ble Chief Justice. 7 130/2021 dt. Rude behaviour Advised to be careful, 02. 03. 2021 with advocates, vigilant while dealing staff, parties/ with the cases and witness/prosecution to make sincere including not taking efforts to dispose of interest in judicial the same as early as work. possible, vide order dated 22. 03. 2023 by Hon'ble Chief Justice. Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another S.

COMPLAINT COMPLAINT ACTION NO NO. & DATE 8 Registrar Order 05. 08. 2020 General - case deferred note-sheet and a special report 12. 11. 2021 called for from the concerned District and Sessions Judge. Report sent to Joint Registrar on 04. 12. 2021 2022 9 81/2022 dt. Procedural lapses Warned to be 12. 01. 2022 and inappropriate careful in future behavior with and lapses should advocates, parties/ not be repeated in witnesses affecting future, vide order dignity of the court. dated 22. 03. 2023 by Hon'ble Chief Justice. 10 468/2022 dt. Complaint by As per note-sheet 17. 05. 2022 Advocate that dated 30. 09. 2022, Petitioner has done the Hon'ble Chief work against the Justice directed that dignity of the Court the complaint be on 19. 04. 2022 filed. Petitioner contends that this complaint was never communicated to her and cannot be used to her detriment 11 877/2022 dt. Re: Misbehaviour Advisory by Hon'ble 29. 09. 2022 with the Chief Justice to Advocate in RCT maintain cordiality No.

310/2019 (State vide Order dated vs. Kanhaiya Lal) 27. 04. 2023 S. COMPLAINT COMPLAINT ACTION NO NO. & DATE 12 992/2022 dt. Failed to monitor File be kept in 21. 12. 2022 sensitive/ abeyance by order suspicious files/ of Hon'ble Chief cases Justice dated 28. 06. 2023 2023 13 174/2023 dt. Inappropriate post File be kept in in social media abeyance by order 15. 03. 2023 (Facebook) of Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 28. 06. 2023 14 271/2023 dt. Certain acts of the File be kept in Judicial Officer abeyance by order 29. 04. 2023 affecting the dignity of Chief Justice of the post dated 14. 05. 2023 15 286/2023 dt. Unauthorized Matter/Complaint be absence from kept in abeyance 08. 05. 2023 office. as per note dated 14. 05. 2023 of PPS. Re: Aditi Kumar Sharma - W. P. (C) No. 233/2024: 4. It is pertinent to narrate the facts relevant to the career trajectory and termination of Petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma in W. P(C) No. 233/2024. On 25. 10.

2018, Petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma was appointed and later posted as Trainee Judge at Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh on probation for two years or till further orders. The petitioner's ACR for the period 01. 01. 2019 to 31. 12. 2019 was graded with a final grade of 'B - Very Good'. It was observed that the petitioner possessed good capacity to do judicial work, good reputation and character, and was overall a very good Judge. 4. 1 The Petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma was appointed as First Civil Judge, Class-II, at Satna in the regular court on 22. 06. 2020. In ACR for the period being 01. 01. 2020 to 31. 12. 2020, the petitioner was graded 'C-Good'. The petitioner's marshalling of evidence, legal reasoning and consideration of law was appreciated. It was also observed that petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma had made sincere efforts to minimize pendency of civil and criminal cases. Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another 4. 2 A perusal of the ACR for 01. 01. 2021 to 31. 12.

2021 reveals that this petitioner was again awarded the grade 'C - Good' for the year. While the District and Principal Sessions Judge had awarded the grade 'B-Very Good', notably, the Portfolio Judge (High Court Judge) lowered the grading to 'C - Good' considering the pendency and disposal. 4. 3 ACR for the year 2021 also notes that the petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma exhibited good conduct of business in court and with the office staff. However, a complaint bearing no. 75/2021 dated 01. 02. 2021 was filed alleging the petitioner wrongfully adjourned Civil Suit No. 4A/2015 titled, "Ramashankar Pandey vs. Beva Rachil". The inquiry Officer found the allegation to be not proved. 4. 4 The same ACR also appreciated her to be a sincere and punctual judicial officer who successfully ensured regular entry and uploading of accurate and complete data. Her quality of judgments was also appreciated to be very good.

Additionally, her capacity to lead, manage, plan and decision making was noted to be good. 4. 5 It must also be noted that the petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma earned total 220. 50 units within 162 standard working days. However, she earned only 22. 9 civil units. 4. 6 For a contextual appreciation of the unit value earned by the petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma, our attention was drawn to the fact that the she had a tumultuous time in the year 2021. At that point, she was given charge of a vacant court whose effective functioning even worsened due to the global pandemic. In 2020, this petitioner got married on a short notice and was hospitalized in ICU for treatment of Covid at Chirayu Hospital, Bhopal. The petitioner was hospitalized for a period of eleven days with further prescription of bed rest for more than ten days after getting discharged.

Furthermore in 2021, in the month of January, the petitioner's brother was diagnosed with blood cancer and soon thereafter, in the month of March, the petitioner herself suffered a miscarriage. Such practical realities both inside and outside the courtroom would certainly merit consideration of this Court. 4. 7 Our attention was drawn by learned counsel for the respondents to the fact that her ACR for the period 01. 01. 2022 to 31. 12. 2022 witnessed a demotion to the grade of 'D - Average'. While the 1480 ACR for 2022 noted that although petitioner had been at the same posting from 26. 05. 2020, a total of only 28 contested regular cases were disposed of in 2022 and no remarkable work was noticed in her duties as junior-in-charge of filing section. 4. 8 It was also noted that despite 1500 number of cases on average pending for adjudication before her Court, the total number of contested and uncontested cases disposed of by her in the entire year of 2022 was less than 200.

To explain the low disposal rate and less units earned, the petitioner attributed the same to less number of cases ready for disposal, absence of witnesses, non-service of notices, warrants, etc. However, these reasons were found to be not satisfactory in relation to lesser units earned by her. 4. 9 In 2022, following complaints were registered against the petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma which merit our perusal. (i) Complaint No. 251/2022 dated 24. 02. 2022 was filed alleging that the name of the petitioner was mentioned in Crime No. 284/2021 registered on behalf of the petitioner's sister to create influence on the police. (ii) It was alleged in another Complaint No. 664/2022 dt. 28. 07. 2022 that in response to objections raised against petitioner's dogs defecating in front of complainant's house, the petitioner used abusive words and released her dogs behind the complainant. Vide Order dt. 17. 12.

2022, the Chief Justice of the High Court directed that permission regarding taking criminal action against the petitioner may not be given. (iii) Complainant in Complaint No. 775/2022 dt. 22. 09. 2022 alleged that the petitioner did not record the statement of complainant in UNCR 27/2022. (iv) Complaint No. 776/2022 dated 22. 09. 2022 again alleged misconduct in the courtroom. It was alleged therein that in UNCR 25/2022 & 26/2022, unnecessary comments were recorded by the petitioner in the order sheet due to sheer animosity. As a consequence, petitioner was advised to mend her behaviour in order to maintain cordial relations with the Bar. Files for both these complaints alleging poor conduct in the courtroom were kept in Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another abeyance by order of the Chief Justice of High Court dated 26. 07. 2023. 4. 10 On 23. 12.

2022, the sitting Principal District & Sessions Judge prepared an Annual Inspection Report which recorded this petitioner's marshalling and appreciation of evidence as proper and generally observed that judicial work of the petitioner appeared to be 'excellent'. However, on the very next day another complaint dt. 24. 12. 2022 was filed against the petitioner. We need not delve into the same as it was not considered by the Full Court in coming to its decision. 4. 11 During the year 2022, petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma earned only 44. 16 units towards civil cases and 269 units for criminal cases. Cumulatively, her unit value, a measure of work done, was 1. 68 units per day for 228 working days. Post adjusting a total of thirteen days as medical leave and 01 day for training out of 220 working days, her final work done was 1. 86 units per day, which the ACR notes to fall under the 'poor category'. 4.

12 Notably, the Portfolio Judge, commenting on her ACR, specifically recorded that the petitioner lacked in her management skills and must drastically improve to achieve targets. Subsequently, on 31. 03. 2023, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh transferred the petitioner to District Tikamgarh, where she assumed charge and served as V Civil Judge, Junior Division until her termination. 4. 13 For ready reference, petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma's Unit Value for each ACR is tabulated as under: UNIT VALUE YEAR UNIT VALUE 2019 Trainee Judge 2020 1. 95 2021 1. 36 2022 1. 86 2023 4. 80 1482 LIST OF COMPLAINTS SR. COMPLAINT COMPLAINT ACTION NO. NO. & DATE 2021 1 Complaint Judicial officer was Inquiry Officer had No. 75/2021 alleged to have not found allegation dt. wrongfully deferred/ be proved. 01. 02. 2021 adjourned Civil Suit No. 4A/2015, titled 'Ramashankar Pandey vs. Beva Rachi' 2 Complaint In Crime File to be kept in No. No. 284/2021, 'Anjali abeyance as per 251/2022 Chakravarti vs.

order of the Chief dt. Subrat Chakravarti', Justice dated 24. 02. 2021 name of Aditi Singh 27. 06. 2023 Kumhare (Sharma) Civil Judge Class- II, Satna who is the sister of Anjali Chakravarti is mentioned in the FIR to create influence on the police 3 Complaint Complainant Chief Justice No. objected to the act vide order dated 664/2022 dt. of allowing dogs 17. 12. 2022 directed 28. 07. 2022 of Ms. Aditi Kumar that permission & Sharma, Judicial regarding taking 26. 04. 2023 Officer directed criminal action that permission to against the judicial defecate in front of officer may not complainant's house. be given and the On 22. 07. 2022 complaint be filed. around 8:00 pm, Since terminated, she used abusive hence, file be words and released kept in abeyance her dogs behind by Order of Chief the complainant by Justice dated untying the rope. 05. 08. 2023. Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another SR. COMPLAINT COMPLAINT ACTION NO. NO.

& DATE 4 Complaint In UNCR 27/2022 File be kept in No. 775/2022 judicial officer is abeyance by order dt. alleged to have not of Chief Justice 22. 09. 2022 recorded statement dated 27. 06. 2023 of the claimant and also erred in functioning of the court. 5 Complaint In UNCR 25/2022 PR(V) proposed to No. 776/2022 & 26/2022, judicial advise Sushri Aditi dt. 22. 09. 222 officer recorded Sharma, I-CJ. Jr. unnecessary/ Division, Satna to uncalled for mend her behavior comments against in order to maintain the advocate in the cordial relations order sheet due to between the Bar animosity. and Bench. File be kept in abeyance by order of Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 27. 06. 2023 6 Complaint In Civil Suit The 6th complaint No. 10/2023 No. 26/2014, titled dated 24. 12. 2022 dt. 'Kali Prajapati vs. does not appear 24. 12. 2022 Soniya Prajapati' the to be part of the judicial officer failed consideration by to pass judgment the administrative since February, side.

2022 despite written arguments filed by both parties. Submissions of learned Amicus Curiae - Sri Gaurav Aggarwal, Senior Advocate: 5. In Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 2 of 2023, Sri Gaurav Aggarwal was appointed as the Amicus to assist this Court by the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. He has made his submissions in respect of both petitioners. 1484 Re: Sarita Choudhary: 5. 1 Learned Amicus submitted that Ms. Sarita Choudhary was appointed as a Civil Judge, Class-II (Entry level) vide order dated 28. 12. 2016 in Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service for two years or on temporary basis till further orders. Initially, she was a trainee Judge and was posted to a regular court with effect from 05. 02. 2018. In July, 2020, her confirmation was deferred owing to pending complaints and on 26. 05. 2023, she was terminated from service. Thus, she served for a period of six years and four months on probation. That the State Government order dated 13. 05.

2023 recorded that the concerned judicial officer had not utilised her probation period successfully and satisfactorily and having regard to the record of her ACRs, assessment chart and other materials, the services of the judicial officer were dispensed with. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Full Court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reconsidered the matter and noted that there were complaints made against Ms. Sarita Choudhary and therefore, the earlier view of termination could not be revoked and hence, it resolved to reiterate the resolution dated 13. 05. 2023. 5. 2 Referring to the ACRs for the years 2017 to 2022, learned Amicus contended that the adverse remarks for the year 2020 ought not to have been taken into consideration as the representation given by the concerned judicial officer was pending at the time when the decision was taken by the Full Court on 13. 05. 2023. The representation was rejected on 13. 12. 2023 i. e. after termination.

The adverse remarks for the year 2021 ought not to have been taken into consideration as the said adverse remarks were communicated to the judicial officer on 09. 10. 2023 i. e. after her termination. It is contended that the non-communication of the adverse remarks in the ACRs was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. 3 It was further submitted by learned Amicus that the ACR of Ms. Sarita Choudhary had substantially improved which fact ought to have weighed with the Full Court on 01. 08. 2024 when there was a reconsideration of her case pursuant to the order of this Court. 5. 4 It was next submitted that the unit value of the judicial officer in the year 2022 was lesser than the previous years for which there was an explanation offered by her citing the following reasons: Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another (i) that number of civil cases in court was very less and all of them were transferred to another court.

(ii) the number of criminal cases in her court also reduced. (iii) that on 18. 01. 2022, there was an order for transfer of criminal cases from her court to another court from November, 2019, when the officer had already conducted the proceedings. (iv) that the above factors affected the workload making it difficult to reach the target unit value. Most of the cases pending in her court were at preliminary stage. (v) Also, due to non-allotment of the police station, fresh cases could not be allotted to her thereby the unit points earned was reduced. (vi) Securing the presence of the parties especially retired persons and migrant labourers became difficult as the parties were residing in other States. (vii) Therefore, it was the submission that the low unit value of the year 2022 could not have been the basis for holding that the judicial officer had not completed her probation satisfactorily. 5. 5 With regard to the complaints made against Ms.

Sarita Choudhary, it was contended that the Full Court Resolution dated 01. 08. 2024 has referred to the said complaints. Two complaints are pending and nine complaints have been closed in the form of advisories, non-recordable warnings or warnings. That none of the complaints could have been the basis for the termination of the judicial officer. That the pending complaints are not serious inasmuch as the first complaint concerned the non-monitoring of the work of the two clerks in the court and the second related to an innocuous facebook post. 5. 6 In the above context, reliance was placed on Anoop Jaiswal vs. Government of India, (1984) 2 SCC 369("Anoop Jaiswal") to contend that it is open for the court to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the termination order to see whether in reality, it is a cloak for an order of punishment.

This is because in the case of misconduct, Article 311(2) of the Constitution would be attracted and an inquiry has to be conducted in the first instance. The aforesaid decision has been followed by this Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath 1486 Bose National Centre for Basis Sciences, Calcutta, (1999) 3 SCC 60 ("Dipti Prakash Banerjee"), and recently in Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 ("Swati Priyadarshini"). 5. 7 It was submitted by the learned Amicus that possibly the warnings and advisories given to the concerned judicial officer may have been the basis for the termination which is founded on alleged misconduct. That this judicial officer had worked for over six years and her unit value was also good. There was no doubt on her integrity and her work also improved in the year 2022. Therefore, this officer ought to be given an opportunity just as other four judicial officer have been given by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. 5.

8 It was submitted that the non-confirmation of a judicial officer who is on probation and consequent termination is subject to judicial review. Re: Aditi Kumar Sharma: 6. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that Ms. Aditi Kumar Sharma joined duty on 30. 11. 2018 as a trainee judicial officer appointed as Civil Judge Class-II. She was posted in regular court from 22. 06. 2020 and was terminated on 26. 05. 2023. That on 08. 05. 2023 and 10. 05. 2023, the Administrative Committee of the Madhya Pradesh High Court met to discuss the performance of 393 Civil Judges which resulted in the termination of this judicial officer, amongst others. 6. 1 Learned Amicus submitted that for the year 2019, this petitioner received "B-Very Good" grading and for the years 2020 and 2021, "C-Good" grading, while for the year 2022, the grading was "D-Average". The said grading could not have been taken into consideration as the same was approved by the Chief Justice of the High Court on 11. 07. 2023 i. e.

after the termination dated 26. 05. 2023. The adverse remark for the year 2022 was communicated to this officer by letter dated 23. 01. 2024, six months after her termination. 6. 2 Insofar as the low unit value of this officer is concerned, the following submissions were advanced: (i) That for the years 2020 and 2021, despite the disposal rate being 1. 95 and 1. 36, this judicial officer had "C-Good" in the said years. Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another (ii) That owing to Covid-19 pandemic, the High Court had waived the target of the requisite unit value vide Circular of the High Court dated 03. 12. 2020. (iii) For the year 2021, the High Court reduced the unit value requirement to 50 per cent. Moreover, this judicial officer had submitted her detailed explanation for the low disposal in the year 2021. Similarly, an explanation was offered for the year 2022. (iv) From January to April, 2023, the unit value of this judicial officer was 4.

80 (for four months only). Thus, the performance of this officer had improved considerably. 6. 3 It was submitted that if the conduct and the quality of performance of the officer has been good and her reputation is also good, mere low disposal should not be the reason for termination. The High Court ought to have made a concession for newly appointed judicial officer. Hence, this Court may consider the correctness of the termination of this officer and give another opportunity to her to prove herself. 6. 4 As far as the complaints against this officer are concerned, the first complaint was by one Ramashankar Pandey and on a discrete enquiry conducted by District Judge (I) Inspection, Jabalpur, this officer was advised to maintain cordial relations between the Bench and the Bar. This advice had been approved by the Portfolio Judge and the file has not yet been placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court.

This advice has neither been communicated to this officer nor has she had an opportunity to represent against the proposed advice. 6. 5 The second complaint was made by one Devrath Chakraworthy who is a litigant and an inquiry into the same was found to be baseless. Therefore, this complaint could not have been the basis for consideration of the case of the judicial officer. The third complaint made by one Advocate Sukhendra Kumar Pandey was that the statement of the complainant was not recorded. No steps has been taken on the said complaint. 6. 6 It was next submitted that the order of the termination of this officer is not termination simpliciter but appears to be stigmatic. Therefore, this case would call for closer scrutiny. It was further submitted that the termination of this officer must be vitiated as 1488 despite having very good and good ACRs for the initial years and for the year 2022, the grade 'D-Average' was not communicated to her.

Consequently, this officer has been denied the opportunity to represent against adverse remarks. Since, this officer had shown remarkable improvement in the year 2023, the low rate of disposal of cases could not have been the sole factor for termination of this officer. 6. 7 Further, the complaints could not have been the basis for termination inasmuch as if the allegation against misconduct of the judicial officer is not followed by an inquiry but is the basis of termination then, the purported termination simpliciter could be interfered with. The court could go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order by lifting the veil. In this case, it was also contended that the protection of Article 311(2) ought to have been provided to this officer as has been held in Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat vs. Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti, (2013) 16 SCC 59 ("Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti"). 6.

8 Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the cases of both the aforesaid officers may be considered favourably by setting aside the termination order and granting them an opportunity to fare themselves better by allowing these writ petitions with appropriate conditions. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-Sarita Choudhary: 7. Learned senior counsel, Sri Basant appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, contended that the High Court was not right in not declaring the successful completion of probation of the petitioner- Ms. Sarita Choudhary and consequently, she has been subjected to discrimination and arbitrary action on the part of the High Court. 7. 1 We might note at the outset that learned senior counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules which provides that the probation period 'shall' not be extended beyond three years from the date of appointment/joining. 7.

2 Sri Basant contended on behalf of the petitioner-Sarita Choudhary that the low unit value for year 2022 being 3. 35 can be explained inter alia, by several reasons; firstly, the number of civil cases Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another in the court were very less and absolutely NIL after transfer of cases; secondly, the criminal matters which she had brought to the stage of disposal since November 2019 were transferred to another Court on January 18, 2022 and the remaining matters could not be disposed of by the petitioner; thirdly, no police station was allotted to the petitioner which curtailed new and miscellaneous judicial work, and resultantly new charge sheets and summary cases were not filed. Consequently, there was reduction in units earned. Furthermore, petitioner submitted that most of the cases (3 years or less than 3 years old) pending in her court were at the preliminary stage.

It was also contended that for the year 2022, the petitioner was not in charge of any section till December 7th, 2022. The efficiency of the petitioner was even hampered due to court employees regularly taking casual leave without prior notice. Similarly, there was only one typist at the dais in the court which severely hurdled court proceedings. Petitioner's learned senior counsel further submitted that despite being directed, the execution clerk would not facilitate referral of mediation cases. Furthermore, it is also submitted that it was laborious and time-consuming to seek the presence of parties, as several were migrant labourers and drivers working in areas other than Raisen district, and employees residing in other States, etc. 7. 3 As far as the ACR for the year 2020 is concerned, it was submitted that petitioner had given a representation against said ACR but it was pending consideration as on the date of her termination.

It was also contended that the actions of Respondent-High Court are in violation of principles of natural justice as the ACR for 2021 was communicated to the officer only after her termination. 7. 4 Inferring from the reply of the respondent-High Court filed before this Court, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that it was mentioned before the Administrative Committee that two complaints were pending against the petitioner. In respect of the first complaint, the petitioner has voraciously highlighted that although the subject matter of the complaint is grave as it involves 321 suspicious cases the allegation qua the petitioner is only of not monitoring the work of execution clerks. The petitioner was given an opportunity to explain and the same was submitted on 06. 04. 2023. As for the pending complaint concerning the post put up by the petitioner on WhatsApp, it was contended that no explanation was called from her.

1490 Submissions on behalf of Petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma: 8. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Ms. Aditi Kumar Sharma, in the first instance, contended that her party has been subjected to discrimination inasmuch as four of the Judicial Officers have been reinstated but not her by the High Court. 8. 1 Learned senior counsel sought to contend that a holistic perusal of the petitioner's ACRs would establish that the petitioner indeed was suitable for confirmation and that the failure to confirm her by relying on irrelevant and insufficient material is bad in law. Learned senior counsel also contended that any conclusion drawn must not be punitive and be based upon a holistic appreciation of petitioner's service record.

It is therefore prayed that this Court may quash and set aside the impugned order of termination for being perverse and illegal; direct the petitioner's reinstatement as a permanent judicial officer with full back wages, continuity in service and seniority. 8. 2 Emphasizing on the integral and compendious nature of ACRs as the primary documents determining a public servant's suitability in services, the petitioner emphasized that, notably, there are no minimum criteria for earning units that must be fulfilled for an officer to be confirmed. 8. 3 The manner of preparation and approval of an ACR was adverted to. Upon filling up of the ACR by a judicial officer based on his/ her self-assessment, it is graded by the reporting authority i. e. the Principal District Judge. Thereafter, the same is reviewed by the Portfolio Judge who is a High Court Judge. Finally, the ACR is placed before the Chief Justice for acceptance. 8.

4 It was submitted in respect of the ACR for 2019 that after approval from the Portfolio Judge and the Chief Justice the petitioner was finally graded 'B-Very Good' in the year 2019. For the year 2020, the petitioner was graded 'C-Good' in the ACR and she is aggrieved by alleged 'incorrect and misleading data' presentation of disposal units in the Assessment Chart placed before the Administrative Committee. The Assessment Chart showed the disposal rate for the entire year of 2020 as 1. 95 units. The petitioner contended that an accurate picture is gleaned from the distribution between pre-Covid (from 1st January to 11th June 2020) and post-Covid (from 13th June to Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another 31st December 2020). Our attention was drawn to the adverse remarks column in the Assessment Chart which records the pre- Covid disposal as 0. 24 and post-Covid disposal to be 0. 67.

It was however contended that disposal for the post-Covid period should accurately reflect 6. 99 units earned by the petitioner which would, as per the relevant circular, fall under the category of "Very Good". Reliance in this regard is placed on the 'Statement Showing the Net Disposal' forming part of the ACR for year 2020. 8. 5 It was also emphasized that in light of Covid-19, the High Court had waived the unit value requirement for the year 2020. As a corollary, the petitioner would submit that no weight should be given to any adverse remarks stemming from low unit value in the year 2020. 8. 6 Both Petitioners highlight that the Covid years - 2020 and 2021 - were particularly cumbersome for the judicial system inasmuch as disposing of cases and other work done was concerned. According to the Petitioner, for the year 2021 the High Court had given 50% relaxation in unit value. Therefore, it was contended that if benefit of extra 1.

50 is given to the petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma, the unit value for 2021 will increase to 2. 86. 8. 7 We need not repeat the practical difficulties endured by petitioner- Aditi Kumar Sharma in 2021. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the low unit value and any other deficiency for the year must be seen in light of the trials and tribulations faced by this petitioner. 8. 8 On the aspect of grade B-Very Good - awarded by the Principal District Judge - relegated to C-Good by the Portfolio Judge citing "pendency and her disposal" in petitioner's ACR for 2021, the petitioner contended that such relegation was approved by the Chief Justice on 13. 04. 2023 i. e. post an excessively inordinate delay of more than one year. The inordinate delay, according to the petitioner, deprived her of improving in a timely manner and therefore negatively impacted her future assessments. 8.

9 Furthermore, it is submitted that despite Covid-19 limitations on functioning of courts, the Principal District Judge remarked her performance to be 'good' in the "quantity of work" section of the Report even though she earned only 22. 9 civil units as, summarily, she earned sufficient units over 162 working days. 1492 8. 10 Furthermore, the petitioner also contended that there was a violation of principles of natural justice. It was argued that the petitioner was never given an opportunity to furnish an explanation against the "adverse remark" noted in the ACR, which was eventually considered by the Administrative Committee for recommending the termination of her services. The fact that the Registrar General of the High Court, on 07. 10.

2023, by way of a communication gave an opportunity to the petitioner to file a representation explaining the "adverse remarks" from the ACR for 2021 is relied upon by the Petitioner to contend that prior to October 2023, the petitioner was never given an opportunity to file a representation; that such an adverse remark did not warrant termination; and that there was complete non-application of mind at the stage of termination. The adverse remark noted stated that "... she has earned only 22. 9 civil units. " 8. 11 In respect of the ACR for 2022, the petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma submitted various grounds before the High Court, inter alia, excessively large number of interim applications prolonging disposal of civil matters, prioritizing matters older than 3 years, etc. It was preliminarily submitted that the Administrative Committee in its meetings in May 2023 should have never considered the ACR of 2022 as the same would not finalised by the accepting authority i. e.

the Chief Justice till July 2023. 8. 12 Furthermore, it was contended that the ACR for 2022 was not prepared by petitioner's Principal District Judge or his successor or the second senior-most judge who had supervised the petitioner for three months but was prepared by the Principal District Judge of Ratlam by virtue of her being the District Judge (Inspection) of the Jabalpur Zone during the relevant period vide D. O letter issued by the Registrar General of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. According to the letter, Smt. Anuradha Shukla was authorized to act as the Inspection Judge of District Satna for the year 2023.

Petitioner challenges the evaluation by the District Judge by contending that the District Judge was not competent to evaluate the petitioner; that the District Judge did not have any opportunity to personally evaluate the performance of the Petitioner; that, consequently, petitioner was graded solely on the basis of units earned dehors any holistic evaluation of other factors such as conduct of business, Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another quality of judgment writing, etc. ; that the Principal District Judge of the Petitioner who personally evaluated the petitioner had assessed her judicial work to be 'excellent' in December 2022 in the Annual Inspection Report of the Petitioner. 8.

13 Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is apparent that on the date the Committee met, this ACR was neither final nor communicated to the Petitioner, and yet the "adverse remarks" and grading of 'D - Average' appearing therein were taken into consideration by the Committee while terminating her services. 8. 14 Although it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that the Administrative Committee of the High Court had arrived at the decision to terminate the services of petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma on a holistic appreciation of her ACRs and service, the petitioner has vociferously contended that the termination is not simpliciter in nature but is founded upon the complaints which were made against the petitioner. It is not out of place to note here that according to petitioner, even as far as her worst ACR of the year 2022 is concerned, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Satna vide Annual Inspection Report dated 23. 12.

2022 assessed that the judicial work of the petitioner appears to be excellent. 8. 15 In order to display her efficiency and commitment to the service, petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma also highlighted that the petitioner earned 4. 80 units from January to April 2023 i. e. until her transfer to District Tikamgarh, which was 'Very Good'. The petitioner earned a total of 321. 35 units and, specifically, 126. 4 civil units - both categorized as 'Very Good'. The Petitioner contends that this shows significant improvement in units earned. This was during post-Covid period. 8. 16 Furthermore, emphasis was laid on the fact that the petitioner had been found not guilty in three complaints out of the five placed before the Administrative Committee.

Although she was found guilty in the discreet inquiries conducted in the remainder two complaints, it was contended that these inquiries violated the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend herself or to make a representation. 8. 17 Learned senior counsel would contend that such deprivation of opportunity to defend herself signifies that the termination 1494 is stigmatic and violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, videKhem Chand vs. Union of India, 1958 SCR 1080. 8. 18 According to her, the termination of the petitioner is punitive and not termination simpliciter as it was founded on complaints of misconduct and the finding of guilt in reports of full-scale inquiries. - vide Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences, (2002) 1 SCC 520 8. 19 Therefore, it was contended that prior to her termination, the Petitioner should have been given an opportunity to be heard, videChandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.

P, (2000) 5 SCC 152. 8. 20 Arguing from the factual record, it was contended that, in any event, the findings of these discreet enquiries are perverse as the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct in complaint no. 775/2022 despite the complaint being withdrawn by the complainant. Therefore, where there could have been no finding of guilt, according to the Petitioner, only an advisory should have been given which, in fact, never was. As for Complaint no. 776/2022, it was advanced that the same was perverse as the statements of the witnesses recorded were not supported by affidavits, instead a piece of paper with the signatures of some advocates was annexed with the report. As per the petitioner, such a practice is unsustainable in law, videAmar Singh vs. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 69. 8.

21 To support the submission that the termination is punitive, it was submitted that this Court can discern the reasons for the termination from the material on record and need not restrict itself to the reasons appearing on the order of termination. Our attention was drawn to the letter addressed by the High Court to the Law and Legislative Works Department dated 13. 05. 2023 recommending the termination of the petitioner which mentions that the Assessment Chart which contains the complaints and the finding of guilt formed part of the material taken into consideration by the Administrative Committee. Specifically, it was emphasized that the Assessment Chart was the only material annexed to the letter. 8. 22 Learned senior counsel submitted that it is trite law that for an order of termination to be stigmatic the words casting stigma Sarita Choudhary v.

High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another may also be contained in an order or proceeding referred to in such an order or in an annexure thereto. That being the case here, it was contended that the order must be construed as ex facie a stigmatic order of termination, as any such reference would inevitably impact the future prospects of the judicial officer, videDr. Vijayakumaran CPV vs. Central University of Kerala & Ors, (2020) 12 SCC 426. 8. 23 Furthermore, it was argued that an order may be stigmatic if perusal of the record discloses that other material was taken into consideration while proposing the action of termination, videState of Bihar vs. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra, (1970) 2 SCC 871 and Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831. 8.

24 Our attention was also invited to the Full Court's observation made while reconsidering the termination inasmuch as it stated that "considering the ACR Gradings, Disposal Statistics, Adverse Remarks, 'complaints made against them' and their overall performance", Full Court was of the view that the termination of the petitioner cannot be revoked. According to the petitioner, this categorically establishes that the Committee acted on irrelevant material i. e. complaints were taken into consideration whilst ignoring relevant material, i. e. , her good performance. It was contended that such decision making is bad in law as inquiries of these complaints were held behind the back of the Petitioner without giving her the reasonable opportunity to show cause videDipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, (1999) 3 SCC60. 8.

25 It was also argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that even a probationer is entitled to the protection provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution as the Article does not condition protection on permanency and is available to probationers alike, vide - Jagdish Mitter vs. Union of India, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 75 : AIR 1964 SC 449. It was contended that probationers require the protection of the Article as much as permanent employees do and to limit the protective provisions of Article 311(2) to only that class of persons who hold permanent positions would be adding qualifying words to the Article which do not ex facie exist, videParshotam Lal 1496 Dhingra vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 ("Parshotam Lal Dhingra"). 8. 26 Learned senior counsel argued that at least soon after approval by the Chief Justice the "adverse remarks" should have b