IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5619 of 2022

======================================================

Supriya Goswami Daughter of Sri Rukmani Raman Goswami Resident of

Street-Hisariyan, Beharipura, Brindavan, District-Mathura, (U.P.) Pin-281121.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The High Court of Judicature at Patna, through the Registrar General, Patna

High Court Patna.

2.The Registrar General, Patna High Court Patna.

3.The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old

Secretariat, Patna.

4.The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar,

Old Secretariat, Patna.

5.The Secretary-Cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of law, Govt. of

BIhar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr.Avanindra Kumar Jha, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr.P.K.Verma (AAG-3)

For the High Court: Mr. Piyush Lal, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY)

Date : 09.11.2023

Heard the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for

the issuance of a writ of certiorari:

(i)

for quashing of the memo no. 43918-

43921 dated 28

th

September, 2021 (Annexure-1) issued

by the Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

2/23

(Respondent No.2), whereby and where under the

Principal Secretary, General Administration

Department, Govt. of Bihar, has been requested to get

the necessary notification issued for giving effect to the

resolution of the Hon'ble High Court, Patna, for

terminating the probation of the petitioner and

discharging her from the service of Bihar Subordinate

Judicial Service, with immediate effect.

(ii) for

quashing of the notification issued

by the General Administration Department, Govt. of

Bihar, as contained in memo no. 13247 dated

05.11.2021 (Annexure 2) whereby and whereunder the

petitioner has been discharged from the service of Bihar

Subordinate Judicial Service, as Judicial Magistrate,

1st Class (Probationer).

(iii) further, for the issuance of writ of

mandamus

commanding the Respondents concerned to

reinstate the petitioner in her services as Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class,

with all consequential benefits.

(iv) for directing the respondents concerned

to confirm the services of the petitioner in the Bihar

Subordinate Judicial Service.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

3/23

3. The matrix of facts giving rise to the present writ

petition is/are as follows:-

4. The petitioner was a successful candidate for the

27

th

Bihar Subordinate Judicial Service (Civil) examination.

Accordingly, she was appointed as Civil Judge (Probationer),

(Junior Division) vide notification/ memo no. 18591 dated

06.12.2013 issued by the General Administration Department,

Govt. of Bihar, Patna (henceforth for short ‘the GAD’)

(Annexure-3 to the petition).

5. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner

submitted her joining/ assumed the charge of Civil Judge

(Junior Division) at Civil Court, Patna vide Charge Report

dated 07

th

of March 2014.

6. Further, after completion of her training under

the District & Sessions Judge, Patna, the petitioner was

conferred the powers of the Judicial Magistrate, IInd Class

vide notification/memo no. 5004-12 dated 26.05.2015 issued

by the Hon'ble Patna High Court. Later, effective 23.02.2016,

she assumed the charge of Judicial Magistrate, 1

st

Class at

Civil Court, Patna.

7. The further case of the petitioner is that Rule 24

of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment)

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

4/23

Rules 1955, (henceforth for short ‘the 1955 Rules’) envisage

conditions for confirmation as Civil Judge (Junior Division)

and read as follows :

(i) completion of two years of service from the

date of

first appointment;

(ii) passing of such test as may be prescribed by

the High Court;

(iii)

recommended by the High Court for such

confirmation.

8. According to the writ petitioner, in the year 2020,

she successfully passed the Departmental examination held on

12.12.2020 and 13.12.2020. Earlier, the process of

Departmental examinations was stayed by the Patna High

Court between the year 2017 to 2019.

9. The contention put forward is that so far as her

work performance is concerned, for the part of the year 2016

and thereafter from 2018 onwards, it was mostly found to be

outstanding. However, as from the end of the year 2016 to

early 2018, she remained on different sanctioned leaves,

totalling 800 days, the record of said period including the

year 2017 is/are not available.

10. The further case is that from part of the year

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

5/23

2020 to first two quarters of 2021, her work performance was

again found to be outstanding. However, for one quarter in the

year 2019, it was found to be poor.

11. The petitioner claimed that if the period of leave

is discounted, her overall performance/output was at par with

several other Officers whose services were confirmed by the

Patna High Court.

12. Her agony started when in the month of August,

2019, the Registrar General, Patna High Court, vide office

letter no. 70979 dated 30

th

August 2019 put the petitioner on

notice which read as follows:-

"........on appraisal of the service

records of Ms. Supriya Goswami, Judicial

Magistrate 1" Class, Patna, the Hon'ble Court has

been pleased to resolve to put her to show cause to

explain as to why her services be not dispensed

with on account of her remaining on leave for

such long periods, thereby severely hampering her

judicial performance and output...…

13. In response to the said notice, the petitioner

submitted her show cause explaining factors leading to the

leaves most of which were sanctioned by the Patna High

Court:

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

6/23

(i) 03.11.2016 to 01.05.2017 (180 days)

maternity leave sanctioned vide letter -No.83863

dated 23.12.2016;

(ii) 02.05.2017 to 02.11.2017 (185 days) child

care leave sanctioned vide letter No.49690 dated

25.07.2017;

(iii) 03.11.2017 to 03.05.2018 (182 days)

extension of child care leave sanctioned vide letter

No.88181 dated 16.12.2017 & 37460 dated

16.05.2018;

(iv) 26.07.2018 to 06.10.2018 (73 days) for

which applications submitted on 17.07.2018 &

27.08.2018 though it remained an unsanctioned

leave and

(v) 05.02.2019 to 03.08.2019 (180 days)

maternity leave sanctioned vide letter no. 22374

dated 08.03.2019.

14. It is her case that pursuant thereto, vide letter no.

83160 dated 24.10.2019, the Registrar General of the Patna

High Court though not satisfied with the explanation warned

her to be careful in future. The letter read as follows:-

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

7/23

“From,

ववभु भूषण पाठक

महावनबंधक,

उचच नयायालय

, पटना

Bidhu Bhushan Pathak

Registrar General,

High Court of Judicature at Patna.

Dated, Patna, the 24.10.2012

To

The District and Sessions Judge,

Patna.

Sir,

I am directed to say that considering the show cause

reply dated 23.09.2019 of Smt. Supriya Goswami, J.M. 1"

Class, Patna the Hon'ble Court did not find the explanation to

be satisfactory. The Officer is warned to be careful in future

and not to apply for any excessive leave which in the present

case is almost 800 days.

The officer concerned may be informed accordingly.

Yours faithfully

Registrar General”

15. The submission of the petitioner is that at the

onset of announcement of nationwide lockdown on

23.03.2020, though there was direction of the Patna High

Court not to leave the Head Quarter, due to urgent work, she

went on casual leave to her home town at Uttar Pradesh. Very

next day, the nationwide lockdown came into force and the

movement of public and private transportation systems were

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

8/23

severely hampered. Thus, she remained stranded at her home

place and could not resume duty till 20.09.2020, the leave

absence being 181 days.

16. The submission is that under the such

extraordinary situation, she was compelled to make requests

for leave/extensions of leave, through the email/her staff in the

Civil Court.

17. It is the submission that again in the month of

May, 2021, she had to visit Uttar Pradesh due to urgent work

for which station leave applications were submitted from time

to time.

18. The petitioner’s case is that ignoring the

aforesaid facts and without taking a sympathetic view, the

memo no. 43918-43921 dated 28.09.2021 was issued by the

office of the Registrar General, Patna High Court addressed to

‘the GAD’ which followed the notification of ‘the GAD’ vide

memo no. 13247 dated 05.11.2021 by which she was

discharged from the service under Rule 11 (x) of the Bihar

Judicial Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

2020.

19. The petitioner alleges that before the issuance of

the letter of termination, even the principles of natural justice

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

9/23

has not been followed by allowing her to defend her case.

20. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the case

of Anchal Dwivedi vs State of Bihar disposed of on

27.09.2023 by Patna High Court in CWJC No. 9745 of 2015

in support of her case.

21. Mr. Piyush Lall, learned Counsel is representing

the Patna High Court.

22. A counter affidavit has been filed by the High

Court and Mr. Lall has taken this Court to Rule 24 of the ‘the

1955 Rules’ according to which, a candidate

selected/appointed for the post remains on probation and will

be eligible for confirmation as Civil Judge (Junior Division)

only upon completion of two years of service from the date of

first appointment, has to pass the test as prescribed by the

Patna High Court and has to be recommended by the High

Court for confirmation.

23. He further submits that as per the Bihar Civil

Rules (Judicial Branch) (Training and Departmental

Examination) Rules, 2019, (henceforth for short ‘the 2019

Rules’) a Civil Judge (Junior Division) appointed on probation

will be eligible to be confirmed as permanent as provided

under Rule 24 and 26 of the ‘the 1955, Rules’. However, in

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

10/23

case of non-confirmation, he/she would be liable to be

discharged from service any time in consultation with the

Patna High Court.

24. It is his submission that between 03.11.2016 to

01.08.2019, she continuously availed leave of different nature

for a total period of 800 days forcing the Patna High Court to

put her on show cause to explain why her services be not

dispensed with as her long leave was hampering the judicial

performance causing adverse effect to the handling and

disposal of the cases. The Registrar General, Patna High Court

requested the District and Sessions Judge, Patna vide letter

no. 70979 dated 20.08.2019 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition)

to obtain her reply to the show cause.

25. The petitioner thereafter submitted her reply on

23.09.2019 (Annexure-12 to the petition). The Patna High

Court though did not find her explanation satisfactory, it

chose not to proceed further but not before warning her to be

careful in future and not to apply for any excessive leave. This

was communicated vide letter no. 83160 dated 24.10.2019

(Annexure-15 to the writ petition).

26. He submits that still, this warning was not taken

seriously by the petitioner and on 23.03.2020, despite the

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

11/23

specific direction of the Patna High Court to all Judicial

Officers not to leave the headquarter, she chose to defy the

said directive, left her place of posting and proceeded to her

native district, Uttar Pradesh. This despite the fact that her

leave application was immediately rejected on the same day by

the District and Sessions Judge, Patna. Thereafter, she kept on

sending application/mails and remained unauthorizedly absent

till 29.09.2020 when she resumed duty, the nationwide

lockdown was lifted long before that date.

27. Learned Counsel submits that in terms of ‘the

2019 Rules’, the Patna High Court vide letter no. 17200-17237

dated 23.03.2021 considering that the matter related to grant of

1

st

increment as well as confirmation in the cadre of Civil

Judge (Junior Division) of Officers were pending, routinely

letters were issued to all the District and Sessions Judge of the

State to submit their response(s) on the Probationer Judicial

Magistrates working under them.

28. The District and Sessions Judge, Araria vide

letter no. 350 dated 25.03.2021 submitted report regarding the

petitioner and other Officers recommending grant of 1

st

increment as well as confirmation in the cadre.

29. However, the said report was followed by

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

12/23

another letter no. 634 dated 29.05.2021 sent by the District and

Sessions Judge, Araria informing the Patna High Court that the

petitioner has left the headquarter on 16.05.2021 giving station

leave petition and a separate application dated 17.05.2021 for

grant of casual leave from that date. The petitioner thus did not

wait for sanction of the leave, before she left the station,

despite the warning issued earlier.

30. He further informed that for the working days

i.e 18.05.2021 to 22.05.2021, 24.05.2021, 25.05.2021 and

27.05.2021, the petitioner gave no information regarding her

absence from the Court and in the process, she has remained

unauthorizedly absent from the headquarter from 17.05.2021

till 28.05.2021.

31. Therefore, the Hon’ble Standing Committee in

its meeting held on 16.9.2021 vide Agenda Item No. 19

considered the above report submitted by the District and

Sessions Judge, Araria and was pleased to resolve as follows:-

"The Committee has been

informed that the matter of confirmation of

the officer concerned is pending for

consideration and the Learned District &

Sessions Judge, Araria has reported her

conduct to be satisfactory. It appears that

the officer reported upon worked under

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

13/23

District & Sessions Judge, Araria for a

period of three months. Registry is directed

to obtain fresh report from District &

Sessions Judge, Araria about the basis of

his report as well as report on her work and

conduct with leave of absence. At the same

time the registry will call for a report from

District & Sessions Judge, Patna about the

work and conduct with leave of absence of

the officer concerned as she was posted

there from 2013 to 2020. Registry is

directed to place the matter alongwith

reports in the next meeting."

32. In response to the above, the District and

Sessions Judge, Patna vide letter no. 13303 dated 21.9.2021

submitted his report stating that on perusal of leave of absence

and number of cases disposed of by the petitioner during the

period 23.2.2016 to 31.12.2020, her performance was not

found to be upto the mark. The report further stated that even

after the letter no. 83160 dated 24.10.2019 issued by the Patna

High Court warning the petitioner to be careful in future and

not to apply for excessive leave, she was issued with two show

cause notices dated 25.10.2019 and 29.11.2019 for proceeding

on leave without prior information and sanction.

33. It was further informed that again despite the

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

14/23

direction of the Patna High Court vide letter no. 19078-19114

dated 23.3.2020 to the Officers and staffs not to leave station

without prior permission of the sanctioning authority, the

petitioner applied for station leave on 23.3.2020. It was

immediately rejected, yet she unauthorizedly went on leave

from 23.3.2020 to 20.9.2020 and joined only on 21.9.2020.

34. The District and Sessions Judge, Patna

alongwith his said letter dated 21.9.2021 also submitted leave

details of the petitioner for the period March, 2014 to

December, 2020 which showed that she remained on leave for

a total period of 1227 days with a number of leaves being

extraordinary one.

35. Similarly, the District and Sessions Judge,

Araria also submitted his report under letter No. 1415 dated

21.9.2021 stating that for the year 2021, the petitioner had

availed leave for a total period of 96 days.

36. The Standing Committee thereafter in its

meeting held on 22.9.2021 vide Agenda Item No. 3 considered

the above matter and was pleased to resolve as follows:-

"Having considered the matter

and inputs received from District &

Sessions Judges of Patna and Araria

respectively, against Ms. Supriya Goswami,

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

15/23

Judicial Magistrate 1" Class, Araria whose

services are yet to be confirmed, the

Committee finds her to be unsuitable for the

job and is not inclined to confirm her

services. Hence, in accordance with the

terms and conditions of her service, the

committee resolves to recommend to the

Hon'ble Full Court for termination of

service of Ms. Supriya Goswami, Judicial

Magistrate 1" Class, Araria, putting her on

notice for a month. Registry to take follow

up action. The Hon'ble Court in its said

meeting vide Agenda Item No. 4 also

considered the matter relating to grant of 1"

increment to the petitioner and was pleased

to resolve as follows:- "In the light of

resolution against Agenda Item No. 3, the

matter is also referred to the Hon'ble Full

Court."

37. Therefore, the Full Court in its meeting held on

28.9.2021 vide Agenda Item No. I considered the matter

relating to termination of service of the petitioner in the wake

of the recommendation made by the Hon'ble Standing

Committee vide its Resolution dated 22.9.2021 and was

pleased to resolve as follows:-

"The Full Court has considered

the matter and finds that the performance of

Ms. Supriya Goswami, JM 1" Class, Araria

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

16/23

since her posting on substantive post is not

satisfactory. The Full Court is of the

opinion that Ms. Supriya Goswami is not

suitable to continue as Judicial Officer.

Hence, the Full Court resolves that the

probation of Ms. Supriya Goswami be

terminated and she be discharged from

service with immediate effect. Registry to

take follow up action." The Hon'ble Full

Court in its said meeting vide Agenda Item

No. 2 also considered the matter relating to

grant of 1" increment to the petitioner and

was pleased to resolve as follows:- "In view

of the preceding resolution, the Full Court

declines to grant increment to Ms. Supriya

Goswami, JM, 1" Class, Araria."

38. Learned counsel for the High Court submits

that it was in the aforesaid background that the letter in

question was sent by the Patna High Court to the State

Government stating that her performance has not been found

to be satisfactory to allow her to continue as Judicial Officer

and it has been resolved that probation of the petitioner be

terminated and her services be dispensed with immediately.

This followed the subsequent letters in question.

39. Fully defending the said orders, the stand of the

Patna High Court is that the impugned decisions are not

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

17/23

arbitrary as the petitioner was discharging sovereign functions

of the State where timely dispensation of justice is of utmost

importance. Further, though she was entitled to take leaves, the

Court was equally entitled to not retain a Judicial Officer

whose performance was not found to be satisfactory.

40. In this context, learned counsel relied on the

following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Registrar, High Court of Gujarat and another

Versus C.G. Sharma (reported in (2005) 1 SCC 132) which

at Para No. 47 read as follows:-

"It may well be in some cases

that in spite of satisfactory performance still

the authority may desire to not to extend the

probation of an employee in public interest,

as in the opinion of the said authority, the

post has to be manned by a more efficient

and dynamic person".

41. Further, the case of Anchal Dwivedi Versus

The State of Bihar and others (supra) do not come to her

rescue as in that case, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to set

aside the order of termination of probation on the ground that

there was absolutely no material available before the Patna

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

18/23

High Court to form an opinion that the petitioner therein was

not fit to be retained in service. In the disciplinary proceeding

initiated against the Officer, in the cited case, he was

exonerated. He also had outstanding ‘ACR’ recorded for the

18 quarters immediately prior to his discharge. In the present

case, the petitioner habitually abandoned her duty without

prior information and sanction of the leaves applied for; that

too outrageously long periods.

42. Further, in the case of the present petitioner,

contrary to the case of Anchal Dwivedi, as stated hereinabove

there was sufficient material on record for the Patna High

Court to reach an objective satisfaction, that the present

petitioner was not fit to be retained in service on the basis of

her judicial performance and habitual absence from duty.

43. He concluded by submitting that as one of the

condition for confirmation is the recommendation to be made

by the Patna High Court; in view of the fact that she was not

found her suitable to be confirmed, the orders in question

came to be passed. He further submits that as the petitioner

was on probation and was not confirmed, she was simply

discharged from service. The same is fully justified and the

writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

19/23

44. The admitted fact is that the petitioner was

appointed as Civil Judge and was on probation. Though the

petitioner claims that for the period she worked, it was found

outstanding, this Court can not ignore the fact that her conduct

right since she joined the post till her discharge from the

service was deplorable and unbecoming of a Judicial Officer

inasmuch as on one pretext or other, she continuously

remained absent for 800 days at the first instance.

45. This resulted in the letter no. 70979 dated

30.08.2019 issued by the Registrar General, Patna High Court

directing the District and Sessions Judge, Patna to seek show

cause on the point why her services be not been dispensed

with.

46. The office of the Registrar General later vide its

letter no. 83160 dated 24.10.2019 considering her show cause

though having found the same to be dissatisfactory gave a

clear warning not to apply for excessive leave.

47. However, this failed to cut any ice with her

inasmuch as and as per the report of the District and Sessions

Judge, Patna, she was issued two show cause notices on

25.10.2019 and 29.11.2019 for proceeding on leave without

prior information. Further, on the eve of COVID-19 pandemic

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

20/23

lockdown announcement, despite the directive of the Patna

High Court, not to leave the Headquarter, she chose to defy the

order and went on leave on 23.03.2020 itself. This despite the

fact that her application was immediately rejected. Once at her

home town, she kept on shooting leave application and it is

important to incorporate one of them for the proper

appreciation.

“From: Supriya Goswami

Judicial Magistrate 1st

Patna.

To, The District and Sessions Judge

Civil Court, Patna.

Sub: Information regarding unable to join the

court due to lockdown in redzone area by reason of

COVID 19.

Respected,

With due respect I have to state that I came to

my home town due to some urgent work but I couldn't

join the court due to lockdown by reason of COVID 19, I

couldn't arrange the transport from Vrindaban district

Mathura to Patna due to lockdown of flights and trains

even buses etc. in the mean time my father in law has

been expired in Agra and I have to come Agra, now I

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

21/23

could not travel because district Agra is in Redzone and

my area containment zone (hot-spot) of COVID 19,

nobody can go outside and also nobody can come in the

area. However I am willing to come Patna and join the

court.”

(underline our)

48. From the aforesaid communication, it is clear

that though the petitioner was unable to come to Patna, she

had no problem travelling to Agra from Vrindaban. Later,

even after joining the post as per her convenience, she

continued with her misdemeanour and in the year 2021, she

once again left the Headquarter forcing the District Judge,

Araria (who had recommended for her confirmation) to send

letters to Patna High Court highlighting this issue.

49. In the aforesaid background, when the

confirmation of the Probation Officer was taken into

consideration, the Standing Committee was bound to look into

her past conduct and thus it sought reports from the two

District Judges (of Patna and Araria) where she had

served/was serving and thereafter found that the petitioner is

not fit to be confirmed. This culminated into the orders in

question.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

22/23

50. So far as the decision of Patna High Court in

the case of Anchal Trivedi vs. State of Bihar (supra) is

concerned, that case was quite different inasmuch as though

there was allegation against her, the Court had noticed that

those allegations were made on the instigation of the District

Judge and the complainant later accepted this fact. In the

aforesaid background, the Court interfered in the matter

holding that when a decision to terminate is challenged, the

Appointing Authority has to satisfy that it was on reasonable

ground and there were sufficient materials on the record. As

the same was found missing, the order was set aside.

51. However, in the case of the petitioner, there was

sufficient materials on record to satisfy the Patna High Court

which led to the orders in question. Thus, the case of Anchal

Dwivedi vs The State of Bihar (supra) do not come to the

rescue of the petitioner, the same being distinct and different

from her case.

52. On the other hand, the case cited by learned

counsel for the Patna High Court of Hon’ble Apex Court in the

matter of Registrar, High Court of Gujarat and another (supra)

fully applies in the present case.

53. The petitioner though joined the post of Civil

Patna High Court CWJC No.5619 of 2022 dt. 09-11-2023

23/23

Judge in the year 2014, she continuously remained on leave

which last totalled to be 1227 days, thus completely affecting

the judicial works assigned to her. In the aforesaid

circumstances, the Patna High Court was fully justified not to

confirm her services which resulted into her discharge from

service. Thus, the order will not vitiate in the absence of

notice.

54. We do not find any ground to interfere with the

orders in question.

55. The writ petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed.

Jagdish/-

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ )

(Rajiv Roy, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 16.10.2023

Uploading Date 10.11.2023

Transmission Date