In Brief
A probationary judicial officer's termination during a routine confirmation exercise does not violate constitutional protections merely because allegations existed in the background. The Supreme Court held that such termination is punitive only if the actual foundation and real motive is specific misconduct—not when it rests on an overall holistic assessment of suitability. Here, the High Court evaluated the respondent across 93 candidates using multiple criteria including vigilance reports. The Division Bench erred by acting as an appellate authority and substituting its judgment for the competent administrative authority. The Court allowed the appeals, approving the termination and setting aside the High Court's reinstatement order.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.