The Patna High Court has upheld the termination of a probationary Indian Revenue Service officer accused in a bribery case, affirming the government’s authority to discharge probationers without a detailed departmental inquiry if found unsuitable for service. The ruling was delivered on April 3 by a division bench of Justices Mohit Kumar Shah and Alok Kumar Pandey while hearing a plea filed by Chandan Prakash Pandey.
Court upholds termination as legally valid
The court held that the termination order dated February 5, 2021 was “simpliciter in nature” and free from legal infirmity. It observed that during the probation period, the government retains wide discretion to assess an officer’s conduct, efficiency, and overall suitability for permanent service.
The bench noted that a probationer has no absolute right to continue in service. Authorities are empowered to extend probation, evaluate performance, or discharge an officer at any stage if concerns arise regarding future efficiency or conduct.
FCRF Launches Premier CISO Certification Amid Rising Demand for Cybersecurity Leadership
Bribery allegation and subsequent action
Pandey, a Group A officer from the 2015 civil services batch, was appointed in December 2016 and placed on a two-year probation. In June 2019, while serving as an assistant commissioner in Patna, he was allegedly caught accepting a bribe of ₹2.5 lakh by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Following the incident, a criminal case was registered and he was arrested. Having remained in custody for more than 48 hours, he was deemed to be under suspension. His services were subsequently terminated by the President of India under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
Tribunal ruling and legal position on probation
Pandey challenged his termination and suspension before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his plea in 2024. The High Court upheld this decision, noting that he remained a probationer at the time and was governed by the 1965 rules applicable to temporary government employees.
The court also clarified that suspension is legally permissible when a criminal case is under investigation, inquiry, or trial, and that detention beyond 48 hours results in deemed suspension. It found both the suspension and its extension to be lawful.
Reinforcing established principles, the court stated that probationary officers do not enjoy the same protections as permanent employees. It held that allegations of serious misconduct, including corruption, can justify immediate discharge without a full departmental inquiry if the termination is non-punitive in nature.
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
