Disposed

Baljinder Singh Sra v. the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chd & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Oct 2011CWP/595/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the dispensing with services of a petitioner-petitioner who was a probationer judicial officer off of probation. Per USD, the Court held that such an order is not simple in nature. The petition was disposed off with the observation that the order is not stigmatic.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with observation that the impugned order dispensing services is not to be construed as stigmatic in nature.

Baljinder Singh Sra Vs the High Court of… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 595 of 2011 Date of Decision: 12.10.2011.

¶3

Baljinder Singh Sra --Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh through its Registrar & another

¶6

--Respondents

¶7

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶9

Present:Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Anmol Rattan Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1.

¶11

Ms. Anu Pal, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent no.2.

¶12

¶13

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶14

Petitioner was appointed as a Judicial Officer pursuant to the selection made in the year 2008. He was on probation for a period of two years. Unfortunately, his services were dispensed with during the probation. Mr. Malik, learned Senior Advocate has referred to a report of the Committee comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court, which seems to have persuaded the High Court to dispense with the services of the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Committee has taken into consideration some letter of S.S.P., Ludhiana which formed the basis for dispensing with the services of the petitioner.

¶15

We have perused the report of the Committee for review of work and conduct of the probationer Judicial Officers (Annexure P-40). Even though the Committee has referred to the letter of S.S.P., Ludhiana, however, the Committee was of the opinion that the work and conduct of

¶16

CWP No. 595 of 2011

¶17

-2-

¶18

the officer is not satisfactory. Thus, the Committee seems to have reviewed the overall work and conduct of the petitioner.

¶19

It is settled proposition of law that dispensing with the services of a probationer during probation is not stigmatic in nature. Thus, without going into the contentions raised, suffice it to say that the order is not stigmatic in nature.

¶20

Mr. Malik has also stated at the bar that the petitioner does not

¶21

want to go back into Judicial Service.

¶22

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the observations that the order impugned is not to be construed as stigmatic in nature.

¶23

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶24

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶25

12.10.2011. lucky

Baljinder Singh Sra v. the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chd & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljinder Singh Sra v. the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chd & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tirath Ram and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajan Goel Vs J.N.Aggarwal and Ors.

Ritu Rani Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sudhir Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Virender Kumar Kharta & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Administrator, U.T.Chd. and Ors. Vs Sanjeev Kumar and Ors.