Discharge During Probation Not Punitive Merely Due To Pending Criminal Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Peon's Plea

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Faqeer Chand, who challenged his discharge from service during the period of probation while working as a Peon in the establishment of the High Court.

The Court held that the impugned order was a discharge, passed in accordance with the terms of appointment and service rules, and did not amount to a punitive or stigmatic termination merely because criminal proceedings were pending against the employee.

Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “We are of the considered opinion that the satisfaction of the employer having been breached, the employer was well justified in discharging the employee during the period of probation… the petition stands dismissed”

Background Facts:

In June 2019, the petitioner was appointed as a Peon of Choice to a Judge of the High Court on a co-terminus basis under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and the Members of Staff (Recruitment, Promotion, Conditions of Service, Conduct & Appeal) Rules, 2015.

Thereafter in January 2023, the petitioner was regularised and was appointed as a Peon on probation for a period of two years with a condition of termination during termination if his work and conduct was not found satisfactory.

However, before completion of probation period the petitioner was discharged from service by the High Court on the ground that he failed to render satisfactory services during the period of probation.

The petitioner contended that criminal proceedings were initiated against him under Section 381 IPC (theft by clerk or servant) and he was suspended. Thus, he submitted that the discharge order was punitive and it was necessary to lift the veil against the order of discharge.

The submissions of petitioner were rejected by the High Court and it was held that the discharge order did not refer to any criminal proceedings and was only based on the employer's dissatisfaction with the petitioner's performance during probation.

Further the Court clarified that “Merely, because the petitioner-employee… had been taken into custody and detained for a period of more than 48 hours… the Authority… had placed him under suspension, keeping in view the mandate of Rule 10(2)…”

Thus, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Name: Faqeer Chand v/s High Court of Himachal Pradesh

Case No.: CWP No.7191 of 2023

Date of Decision: 18.12.2025

For the Petitioner: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate as Legal-Aid-Counsel with Ms. Sugandh Verma, Advocate.

For the Responsent: Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order