The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Haryana Civil Judge, Ankur Lal, whose integrity was deemed “doubtful” during his probation period. The court ruled that the concept of “deemed confirmation” cannot override adverse probation reports, emphasizing the paramount importance of judicial integrity.

Appointed in 2008, Lal was placed on a two-year probation, later extended by the High Court administration. During this period, he received several complaints, including an anonymous one from the Bar Association of Ferozepur Jhirka. His Annual Confidential Report for 2010-11 rated his performance as below average with remarks indicating “integrity doubtful.” Consequently, the Administrative Committee recommended the termination of his services in 2012.

Lal contested the dismissal, arguing that under Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, he should have been “deemed confirmed” after completing the probation period, especially given the availability of vacancies. However, the bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel rejected this contention. They stated that allowing deemed confirmation despite adverse remarks would result in an unfit individual being confirmed, which would be detrimental to the judicial system’s integrity.

The court further noted that the concept of deemed confirmation is outdated and undermines the employer’s authority to assess a probationer’s suitability. It emphasized that mere completion of the probation period does not guarantee confirmation, especially when the service record includes adverse entries. This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining high standards of integrity and performance among its officers.

sources