The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently upheld the dismissal of a former Haryana judicial officer in a ruling that reinforces the importance of integrity and performance within the judiciary. The case involved Ankur Lal, a former probationary civil judge (junior division), whose services were terminated following concerns about his integrity and overall performance.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed Ankur Lal's petition challenging the decision of the high court's Full Court, which had recommended his discharge on July 23, 2012. The Haryana Government acted on these recommendations, issuing an order on December 4, 2012, to terminate his probationary services.

Lal had initially been appointed on February 13, 2008, and placed on probation for two years, a period that was subsequently extended. His service record reflected multiple adverse remarks, including a 'B-Satisfactory' rating in 2009–10, a 'C–Below Average' rating with the remark "integrity doubtful" in 2010–11, and a 'B–Average' rating in 2011–12. During the 2010-11 period, the Bar Association of Ferozepur Jhirka had also submitted an anonymous complaint against him. The Administrative Committee, after reviewing his service record and the complaint, recommended that his services be dispensed with, a view that was endorsed by the Full Court and conveyed to the government.

In his defense, Lal argued that under Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, he was entitled to deemed confirmation upon completing three years of probation, especially given the existence of vacancies. However, the bench rejected this argument, clarifying that deemed confirmation requires both a permanent vacancy and satisfactory service, neither of which applied to Lal's case.

The High Court emphasized that the concept of "deemed confirmation" cannot override an employer's power to analyze the work, conduct, and behavior of a probationer to ensure suitability for service. The court noted that "deemed confirmation" was "a perilous concept in service jurisprudence which has long been discarded," as it erodes the employer's ability to assess a probationer's fitness. The judges further added that if deemed confirmation were applied despite adverse remarks, including "integrity doubtful," it would create an "anomalous situation" where an unfit probationer with a tainted service record would be confirmed, which would be "deleterious to the very concept of probity on which the entire judicial system stands".

The court found no procedural irregularity in the discharge decision and ordered that Lal's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) be returned to the relevant branch. The ruling reinforces the principle that integrity and performance during probation are non-negotiable requirements for judicial appointments, and that automatic confirmation cannot supersede a service record marred by adverse remarks.

This verdict underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining high ethical standards and ensuring that only individuals with unquestionable integrity and a proven track record of satisfactory performance are allowed to serve as judicial officers.