Punjab & Haryana high court upholds dismissal of former Haryana judicial officer

CHANDIGARH: The concept of "deemed confirmation" cannot override an employer's power to analyse work, conduct and behaviour of a probationer to ensure suitability in service, the Punjab and Haryana high court said, dismissing a petition filed by a former judicial officer of Haryana Civil Services (judicial branch).Upholding the dismissal of the petitioner, Ankur Lal, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said "deemed confirmation" was "a perilous concept in service jurisprudence which has long been discarded", since it erodes into the power of the employer to assess work, conduct and behaviour of the probationer. Besides, it would mean even a person of questionable integrity could enter judicial services, the judges added."If deemed confirmation is brought into play, notwithstanding the adverse remarks, including that of 'integrity doubtful' based on lacklustre performance, conduct and behaviour of the petitioner, then an anomalous situation would arise where the probationer, despite being unfit for confirmation, is deemed to be confirmed. This would bring into the service a judge of doubtful integrity, whose service record is tainted with adverse remarks. This would be deleterious to the very concept of probity on which the entire judicial system stands," the bench said.The petitioner had sought directions to quash the recommendation dated July 23, 2012, for termination of his probationary service as civil judge (junior division). Appointed on Feb 13, 2008, Lal was placed on probation for two years, a period later extended by the high court administration. Following a complaint received from the Ferozepur Jhirka Bar Association, the then acting Chief Justice referred the matter to the administrative committee. On July 18, 2012, the committee recommended Lal's termination in view of his conduct and overall service record during his posting in Bhiwani.Lal, in his petition, argued that under Rule 7.3 of the Rules of 1951, after completing two years of probation plus an extension of one year, and in the backdrop of available vacancies in the cadre, he should have been deemed confirmed.