Case Name: Pinky Meena v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ____ of 2025 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023]
Date of Judgment: 22 May 2025
Quorum: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The appellant, Pinky Meena, a Scheduled Tribe female and highly educated legal expert, joined the Rajasthan Judicial Services (RJS) as a Civil Judge (Probationer) following clearance of the 2017 examination. Before joining the judiciary, she worked as a Teacher Grade–II in the Education Department of Rajasthan. Once she finished her judicial training successfully, she was retained on AWaiting Posting Order (APO) and later served a show-cause notice based on a number of allegations regarding her academic as well as professional background. They included concurrent pursuit of LL.B. and B.Ed., obtaining an LL.M. while already working as a teacher without due approval, not securing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to sit for the RJS examination, and hiding previous government service, allegedly. After a inquiry and report by the Registrar (Vigilance), the Full Court of the High Court decided to terminate her service. Her writ petition against discharge was rejected by the Rajasthan High Court, whereupon she approached the Supreme Court.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Was the discharge of the appellant from service justified and carried out in accordance with principles of natural justice?
- Whether prior irregularities which have no nexus with her judicial service can be a reason for removal from judicial service?
- Whether the order of termination was stigmatic, hence attracting the provisions under Article 311(2) of the Constitution?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Rule 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Article 142 of the Constitution (extraordinary powers of the Supreme Court).
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
The appellant argued that the alleged offenses—such as undertaking several degrees and resigning without NOC—took place before her appointment as a judicial officer. She presented that she had finished her training as a judicial officer without any flaw and that she had resigned from the previous government service before she became a member of RJS, rendering any allegation of concealment factually wrong. She also contended that the report of inquiry was drafted without her being given due opportunity to reply, making the process in violation of natural justice. The order of termination on grounds of misconduct was stigmatic and punitive in character, hence an observance of Article 311(2) was not adhered to.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The Rajasthan High Court maintained that the appellant had committed academic dishonesty by pursuing degrees simultaneously contrary to the rules of the university and failed to seek pre-permission or release employment information. Banking on Rules 14 and 46 of the RJS Rules, the High Court stated that being a probationer, she did not have any vested right to remain and could be terminated due to unsuitability. The respondents stressed that the Full Court was right to dismiss her on grounds of misconduct as per the findings in the fact-finding report. The High Court argued that the appellant had not met the expected standards of a judicial officer, particularly at the beginning of her career.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court noted that the majority of the allegations had occurred before the appellant’s appointment as a judicial officer and were from her days as a teacher. The investigation process itself was ultimately defective: there was no formal hearing, no presenting officer was named, and the report never reached the appellant. The Court held that dismissal based on such an inquiry was punitive in character and consequently stigmatic, engaging the protection under Article 311(2). It also acknowledged that the appellant had done her training excellently and had already quit her earlier job prior to the judicial interview, rendering the charge of concealment weak. Further, the Court highlighted the value of a diverse judiciary that is inclusive, acknowledging the structural disadvantages suffered by women from tribal backgrounds. The appellant’s determination and merit, in spite of structural disadvantages, were recognized as strengths to the judicial system.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court granted leave in appeal. It set aside the show-cause notice of 17.02.2020 and the order of discharge of 29.05.2020. The appellant was ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits such as notional seniority and fixation of pay, but excluding back wages. She was also to be considered as a confirmed judicial officer having successfully completed probation.
CONCLUSION
This decision is important in maintaining the procedural rights of judicial probationers and illuminating that orders of discharge on the ground of misconduct cannot overstep protection under Article 311. It gives proper importance to the requirement of diversity in the judiciary and acknowledges the unequal burden of rejecting a capable woman officer on trifling and retrospective technical grounds. By reconciling institutional integrity with rights of the individual, the decision indicates a larger jurisprudential trend toward equity, due process, and representation within public service.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY ADI MEHTA
