The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to interfere with the discharge of a probationary court employee, holding that the termination was a simple discharge due to unsatisfactory service and not a punishment linked to a criminal case.
A Division Bench led by the Chief Justice delivered the ruling while dismissing a writ petition filed by Faqeer Chand, who had challenged his removal from service during probation.
Read also:- Patna High Court Quashes Punishment on DMCH Staff, Says Inquiry Had ‘No Evidence’ in ICU Oxygen Deaths Case
Background of the Case
Faqeer Chand was initially appointed in June 2019 as a “Peon of Choice” attached to a sitting judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. His appointment was on a co-terminus basis, meaning it was linked to the tenure of the judge and could be ended without notice if his work was found unsatisfactory.
After nearly four years, his services were regularised in January 2023 by relaxing service rules. However, the regular appointment placed him on probation for two years, with a clear condition that his services could be terminated at any stage during probation if his work or conduct did not meet expectations.
In September 2023, before completion of the probation period, the High Court administration issued an order discharging him from service, citing unsatisfactory performance.
Appearing as legal aid counsel, the petitioner’s senior advocate argued that the discharge order was not a routine termination. She pointed out that an FIR for alleged theft had been registered against the employee in August 2023 and that he was suspended following his arrest.
On this basis, it was argued that the court should “lift the veil” and see the discharge as a punitive action linked to the criminal case. The counsel relied on recent Supreme Court rulings to argue that termination without a departmental inquiry violated principles of natural justice.
Court’s Observation
The Bench examined the discharge order closely and found no reference whatsoever to the criminal case or the suspension.
“The order only records that the petitioner failed to render satisfactory services during the period of probation,” the court noted, adding that there was nothing stigmatic in the language used.
The judges observed that suspension was automatic under service rules once the employee was in custody for over 48 hours and could not, by itself, convert a probationary discharge into a punishment.
Read also:- Allahabad HC Sets Aside Municipal Election Verdict, Says Delay in Election Petitions Cannot Be Condoned
The court further clarified that a probationer does not have a vested right to continue in service. If the employer is dissatisfied with performance, services can be discontinued without holding a full departmental inquiry, provided the order is not punitive in nature.
Distinguishing earlier Supreme Court cases cited by the petitioner, the Bench said those involved termination orders carrying stigma or explicit findings of misconduct, which was not the situation here.
Decision of the Court
After considering the facts and applicable service law principles, the High Court found no illegality in the discharge order.
“The employer was well within its powers to discharge the employee during probation upon loss of satisfaction,” the Bench held while dismissing the writ petition.
With this, the challenge to the discharge order failed, and all pending applications were also disposed of Faqeer Chand.
Case Title: Faqeer Chand vs High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Case No.: CWP No. 7191 of 2023
Case Type: Service Writ Petition
Decision Date: 18 December 2025
