Telangana HC refuses to reinstate trainee judge discharged in 2018

It ruled that his acquittal in a rape case six years later does not make his discharge invalid.

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has upheld the removal of a former Civil Judge trainee from service over concerns about his behaviour during training.

It ruled that his acquittal in a rape case six years later does not make his discharge invalid.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda dismissed the former trainee judge’s petition challenging the December 2018 decision of the High Court’s Administrative Committee.

The bench held that the decision to end his service was based on an assessment of his suitability for the judicial post and was not punishment for a specific charge of misconduct.

It, therefore, ruled that the termination did not require the protection provided under Article 311 of the Constitution.

What led to the trainee judge’s discharge?

The petitioner joined the judicial service as a Civil Judge Trainee in 2016 and was placed on probation.

In July 2018, he was assigned to observe proceedings at the Telangana High Court as part of his training. During the visit, he allegedly spoke loudly with a woman trainee officer.

A second incident was reported during field training in August 2018. The two officers, despite being assigned to different training groups, were allegedly seen together frequently.

Meanwhile, another woman filed a criminal complaint against the trainee judge, following which a first information (FIR) was registered against him for alleged rape and cheating.

In view of these developments, the authorities suspended him and sought his explanation on whether his probation as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) should be brought to an end.

After examining his response and the reports received from the Judicial Academy, the Administrative Committee decided to discharge him under Rule 11 of the State Judicial Service Rules in December 2018.

Petitioner questions decision to terminate service

Challenging the decision, the former trainee judge argued that the discharge was effectively a punishment based on allegations of misconduct.

He maintained that the authorities should have conducted a departmental inquiry before taking such action. He also claimed that his explanation regarding the incidents was not properly considered and that the allegations had no connection with his judicial work.

The petitioner further relied on his acquittal in the criminal case in 2024. He also pointed out that the Andhra Pradesh High Court had overturned the discharge of the other trainee officer involved in the incidents.

Why the High Court rejected his petition

The bench said that ending the service of a probationer for being unsuitable was legally different from dismissing an employee as punishment after establishing misconduct.

The court found that the Administrative Committee had examined the Judicial Academy’s reports about the petitioner’s conduct during the High Court visit and practical training. It had also considered the criminal proceedings against him.

However, the committee’s resolution did not record any specific charge or finding of misconduct. Its decision was based on the overall assessment that he was not suitable for continuing as a judicial officer.

The court also stressed that judicial officers must maintain high standards of behaviour and uphold dignity and discipline in public spaces.