Supreme Court reinstates Scheduled Tribe woman who was removed as civil judge by High Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated a Scheduled Tribe woman as civil judge after the Rajasthan High Court had discharged her from service for failing to disclose her earlier employment as a government teacher [Pinky Meena vs. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr.]. .A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma held that the discharge order, passed on grounds of unsuitability, was in fact a penalty imposed without affording any opportunity to respond and was founded on minor irregularities.While criticising the High Court’s decision, the bench observed that the punishment imposed was entirely out of proportion.“In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant has been awarded capital punishment for a minor irregularity (omission),” the Court said..The officer, Pinky Meena, a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe community, had been appointed to the Rajasthan Judicial Service in 2018. During her probation in 2020, she was discharged on the ground that she had failed to disclose her earlier employment as a government teacher and had pursued a postgraduate degree in law without obtaining a no-objection certificate. The discharge order was confirmed by a full court resolution of the Rajasthan High Court in 2023. Meena then filed a petition before the High Court seeking to quash the order but was unsuccessful. She then moved the Supreme Court. .The top Court noted that Meena had resigned from her government teaching post on October 25, 2018, before her RJS interview in November 2018. Given this, the Court held that not disclosing her earlier employment at the time of the interview could not be construed as a serious lapse.“The question of disclosing the past government service is certainly not a material irregularity or a serious misconduct for which she ought to be discharged from service,” the Court observed..On the issue of failing to obtain a no-objection certificate from her previous employer, the Court accepted Meena’s explanation that the RJS rules did not require such permission, and reiterated that her resignation predated her selection..The Court also criticised the enquiry process conducted by the Rajasthan High Court’s Registrar (Vigilance), noting that Meena was not provided with the inquiry report or an effective opportunity to defend herself.“The order discharging the appellant from service violates principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not provided an opportunity to be heard during the enquiry,” the Court noted in its judgement. It emphasised that while probationers may be discharged without inquiry if found unsuitable, the present case involved a decision that was clearly based on alleged misconduct, rendering the discharge stigmatic and punitive..The judgment also underlined the importance of gender representation in the judiciary, noting that Meena—a tribal woman—had overcome significant barriers to qualify for the judicial service.“The appellant has shown great perseverance by fighting societal stigmas and gaining a rich education that will ultimately benefit the judicial system and the democratic project,” the Court said, adding that promoting women’s participation improves the quality of judicial decision-making..Hence, the Court quashed the 2020 show cause notice and discharge order. It directed her reinstatement with all consequential benefits, including seniority and notional pay fixation, while denying back wages. The Court also held that she must be treated as a confirmed judge, having successfully completed her probation..Meena was represented by advocates Mayank Jain, Parmatma Singh, Madhur Jain, Aakriti Dhawan and Arpit Goel. The respondents were represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati along with Advocates Mukul Kumar, Anupriya Srivastava, and S Udaya Kumar Sagar. .[Read Judgement]