Delhi High Court Upholds Termination Of Probationary DHJS Judge Over Viral Video, Says Action Not Stigmatic
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a probationary officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) challenging the termination of his services following circulation of a viral courtroom video, holding that the decision was a termination simpliciter based on overall unsuitability, and not a punitive or stigmatic action.A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal...
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a probationary officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) challenging the termination of his services following circulation of a viral courtroom video, holding that the decision was a termination simpliciter based on overall unsuitability, and not a punitive or stigmatic action.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan upheld the validity of the notification dated October 10, 2024 and the consequential order dated October 14, 2024, by which the services of the petitioner, an Additional District Judge on probation, were dispensed with under Rule 14 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970.
“The termination, being simpliciter in nature, is neither punitive nor stigmatic, and does not attract the safeguards of Article 311(2) of the Constitution or the principles of natural justice applicable to disciplinary proceedings,” the Court said.
It added that the action represented a lawful exercise of the Rules to discontinue the services of a probationer found unsuitable for retention.
The Court said that the decision was founded upon an overall assessment of the judge's performance, conduct, and service record, including the adverse Annual Confidential Report (ACT) and complaints placed before the Full Court, and dud not rest upon any established or adjudicated misconduct.
The petitioner, appointed to the DHJS in April 2023 on a two-year probation, was posted as an Additional District Judge at Dwarka Courts. On September 6, 2024, a video clip showing an altercation between him and a litigant during court proceedings went viral on social media, allegedly portraying the judge as being under the influence of alcohol.
Claiming that the video was selectively recorded in violation of video-conferencing rules and that no incriminating material was found during a subsequent inspection of his courtroom, the judge contended that his termination was founded solely on this incident.
He further argued that the action violated Articles 14, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India, as no disciplinary enquiry or opportunity of hearing was afforded to him.
Rejecting the petition, the Court said that the judge's challenge to the impugned action taken against him was devoid of any merit.
The Bench noted that the judge was a probationer with no vested right to continue in service, and that his termination was preceded by an adverse Annual Confidential Report dated August 29, 2024, recorded even prior to the viral video incident.
The Court said that the ACR, approved by the Full Court, recorded that the judge needed to improve his behaviour in court and that he had been reported to be “extremely rude” to advocates on several occasions. His judgments were also graded as “below average”, the Court said.
“These remarks under the ACR, bear importance upon the core attributes of judicial temperament and quality of adjudicatory work, both of which are central to an assessment of suitability for continuation in the DHJS,” the Bench noted.
Further, the Court observed that the termination was founded upon established misconduct and that the termination order did not contain any stigmatic language or refer to any finding of guilt and was explicitly casted as a termination during probation.
“On the facts as they emerge from the record, the termination of the Petitioner‟s services constitutes a legitimate exercise of the High Court‟s power under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1970, grounded in an adverse ACR, complaints bearing upon suitability, and a considered Full Court assessment of the non- suitability of a probationary judicial officer. Tested against the settled principles as enumerated in the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, the Impugned Actions clearly fall on the side of termination simpliciter of a probationer for unsuitability, and not punitive removal for misconduct,” the Bench said.
Title: AMAN PRATAP SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 168