Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds removal of judicial officer who went on foreign trips sans permission

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld the discharge of a probationary judicial officer, who travelled to Doha and the United Kingdom in 2019 without any official permission [Abhinav Kiran Sekhon Versus State of Punjab and Another]..A division bench of Acting Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji remarked that an officer who repeatedly commits acts of insubordination or suppression during the period of probation would continue with such behaviour after probation.Such conduct would set a bad example for the judicial officers and would not at all be desirable, the bench said..Abhinav Kiran Sekhon, the petitioner, had sought quashing of the order issued by Punjab government on April 9, 2021 for dispensation of his services as unsatisfactory.The government order was based on a recommendation made by the full court of the High Court for discharge of Sekhon’s services. Sekhon had qualified the Punjab Civil Services (PCS) Judicial Examination, 2015 and was appointed to the service in 2016. He was serving as a Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at the time of his removal in 2021.His main contention before the High Court was that his service automatically stood confirmed after three years as a probationer and thus he could not have been removed without proper disciplinary proceedings..Two instances of foreign travel had led to Sekhon’s dismissal -He had travelled to Doha from October 23 to October 29 in 2019 without the High Court’s permission. Though in the second instance, his leave for US travel between December 22, 2019 to January 1, 2020 had been granted, he instead travelled to the UK as his visa for USA had been declined..Considering the detailed submissions made by the senior counsel representing Sekhon and the counsel representing the High Court, the High Court first considered whether the petitioner’s service was deemed to have been confirmed.After examining various cases cited by the petitioner, the Court came to the conclusion that in the absence of any rule stating so, there can be no deemed confirmation and even if the period of probation is stipulated, a letter of confirmation is required before confirmation of service.“In case of a simplicter discharge during the period of probation, there is no requirement of conducting full scale enquiry but only in case the termination is stigmatic, a full scale departmental enquiry was required to be conducted,” it added..On merits, the Court remarked that the conduct of the petitioner clearly rendered him unsuitable as a judicial officer. It also opined that only assessment of Annual Confidential Reports or grant of annual increments are not indicative of suitability of a judicial officer. “Till such time an order of confirmation is not made after scrutinizing the records of a judicial officer, he continued to be a probationer,” the Court concluded..With regard to Sekhon’s foreign travels, the Court said that he did not think it necessary to wait for his approval of Ex-India leave before travelling abroad and the same was indicative of his insubordination.“Despite being informed telephonically that his leave has been rejected, he still proceeded to travel abroad and did not think it necessary to apologize immediately upon his return in October, 2019,” it added..The Court also noted that when asked to explain why he had fixed less number of cases for hearing on October 23 and 24 in 2019, he had only referred to earned leaves that he intended to take on the dates. He did not disclose that he in fact travelled on those dates by clubbing the same with Diwali vacation without obtaining necessary permission, it added."This is clearly indicative of the fact that the petitioner being a judicial officer, sought to suppress material facts before the Hon’ble High Court," the bench said..The Court also observed that he had filed an application for foreign travel for the October dates late as he knew the grant of such leave takes time. Thus, the Court opined that it was apparent that he intended to travel abroad without necessary permission. With regard to his application for permission to travel to the US in December 2019, the Court noted that Sekhon had purposely withheld certain pages of his passport when he was asked to produce it for the purpose of his record.The Court remarked that the suppression was done deliberately..The Court, therefore, dismissed the petition.“There is no infirmity in such ‘decision making process’ which merits interference,” it said.Senior Advocate RS Bains with Advocate Aman Raj Bawa represented the petitionerDeputy Advocate General Arjun Sheoran represented the State of Punjab Advocates Ranjit Singh Kalra, Randeep Singh Smagh and Mona Yadav represented the High Court of Punjab and Haryana[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.