# Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 289
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-02-28
- **Bench:** B.V. Nagarathna, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sarita-choudhary-v-high-court-of-madhya-pradesh-another-38283
- **Pages:** 78

## Headnote

Matter pertains to the correctness of order passed by the High
Court terminating two women Judicial Officers from service during
probation period; and whether the cessation of services of two
Judicial Officers is punitive, arbitrary and thus, contrary to law.
Headnotes†
Judiciary - Subordinate judiciary - Judicial officers -
Termination from service during probation - Six women
Judicial Officers terminated on the recommendation of the
Administrative Committee of High Court on the ground of
low disposal rate of cases and alleged performance issue -
Supreme Court, in a suo moto writ petition, requested the Full
Court of the High Court to reconsider the termination order -
Consequently, only four officers reinstated - Two other officerspetitioners due to low grades in ACRs, low unit value, and
complaints regarding management and interpersonal skills,
terminated from service during probation - Challenge to -
High Court did not deem proper to reinstate the petitioners -
Correctness:
Held: ACRs which were adverse in nature were either not
communicated in time and even after an explanation was received,
no effort to expunge the adverse remarks made in the said ACRs
on the basis of a consideration of the explanation, they were simply
rejected - Reference to the consistent "poor performance" not in
accordance with the record, the record speaks otherwise - Inherent
contradictions in the ACRs - 'Other material'- complaints were either
concluded or pending against them - If the complaints formed the
foundation for these officers to be terminated, an opportunity had
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1457
Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another
to be given before termination having regard to Art. 311 read with
relevant Conduct Rules - Termination of the two judicial officers
is punitive, arbitrary and thus, illegal - Terminations were by way
of punishment as the surrounding circumstances show that the
terminations were, inter alia, founded on the allegations of the
complaints of misconduct and "inefficiency" and were stigmatic in
nature - Even though many of the complaints against these officers
may have been closed or resulted in advisories/warnings, they
could not have been the basis for the impugned terminations -
Resolutions of the Administrative Committee followed by the
Resolution of the Full Court, orders of the High Court and the
Government Orders insofar as the two officers, illegal and contrary
to the established principles of law and, liable to be set-aside -
Thus, the termination orders vis-a-vis the petitioners set aside
including the Resolution and the order/letter of the High Court, order
of the State Government and all consequential adverse orders, if
any - Petitioners reinstated in their service with all consequential
benefits - Constitution of India - Art. 311 - Madhya Pradesh
Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,
1994 - r.11(c). [Paras 16, 16.1, 18]
Service law - Probation - Services of a probationer - When,
non-stigmatic termination:
Held: Services of a probationer could result either in a confirmation
in the post or ended by way of termination simpliciter - However, if
a probationer is terminated from service owing to a misconduct as
a punishment, the termination would cause a stigma on him - If a
probationer is unsuitable for a job and has been terminated then
such a case is non-stigmatic as it is a termination simpliciter - Thus,
the performance of a probationer has to be considered in order
to ascertain whether it has been satisfactory or unsatisfactory - If
the performance of a probationer has been unsatisfactory, he is
liable to be terminated by the employer without conducting any
inquiry - No right of hearing is reserved with the probationer and
hence, there would be no violation of principles of natural justice
in such a case - Test is, whether, in a given case the termination
is simpliciter or by way of punishment - Even though a probationer
has no right to hold a post, it w

## Text

_Characters 0–39,711 of 163,600. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39711 for what follows._

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1456 : 2025 INSC 289
Sarita Choudhary
v.
High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 142 of 2024)
28 February 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna* and
Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of order passed by the High
Court terminating two women Judicial Officers from service during
probation period; and whether the cessation of services of two
Judicial Officers is punitive, arbitrary and thus, contrary to law.
Headnotes†
Judiciary - Subordinate judiciary - Judicial officers -
Termination from service during probation - Six women
Judicial Officers terminated on the recommendation of the
Administrative Committee of High Court on the ground of
low disposal rate of cases and alleged performance issue -
Supreme Court, in a suo moto writ petition, requested the Full
Court of the High Court to reconsider the termination order -
Consequently, only four officers reinstated - Two other officerspetitioners due to low grades in ACRs, low unit value, and
complaints regarding management and interpersonal skills,
terminated from service during probation - Challenge to -
High Court did not deem proper to reinstate the petitioners -
Correctness:
Held: ACRs which were adverse in nature were either not
communicated in time and even after an explanation was received,
no effort to expunge the adverse remarks made in the said ACRs
on the basis of a consideration of the explanation, they were simply
rejected - Reference to the consistent "poor performance" not in
accordance with the record, the record speaks otherwise - Inherent
contradictions in the ACRs - 'Other material'- complaints were either
concluded or pending against them - If the complaints formed the
foundation for these officers to be terminated, an opportunity had
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1457
Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another
to be given before termination having regard to Art. 311 read with
relevant Conduct Rules - Termination of the two judicial officers
is punitive, arbitrary and thus, illegal - Terminations were by way
of punishment as the surrounding circumstances show that the
terminations were, inter alia, founded on the allegations of the
complaints of misconduct and "inefficiency" and were stigmatic in
nature - Even though many of the complaints against these officers
may have been closed or resulted in advisories/warnings, they
could not have been the basis for the impugned terminations -
Resolutions of the Administrative Committee followed by the
Resolution of the Full Court, orders of the High Court and the
Government Orders insofar as the two officers, illegal and contrary
to the established principles of law and, liable to be set-aside -
Thus, the termination orders vis-a-vis the petitioners set aside
including the Resolution and the order/letter of the High Court, order
of the State Government and all consequential adverse orders, if
any - Petitioners reinstated in their service with all consequential
benefits - Constitution of India - Art. 311 - Madhya Pradesh
Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,
1994 - r.11(c). [Paras 16, 16.1, 18]
Service law - Probation - Services of a probationer - When,
non-stigmatic termination:
Held: Services of a probationer could result either in a confirmation
in the post or ended by way of termination simpliciter - However, if
a probationer is terminated from service owing to a misconduct as
a punishment, the termination would cause a stigma on him - If a
probationer is unsuitable for a job and has been terminated then
such a case is non-stigmatic as it is a termination simpliciter - Thus,
the performance of a probationer has to be considered in order
to ascertain whether it has been satisfactory or unsatisfactory - If
the performance of a probationer has been unsatisfactory, he is
liable to be terminated by the employer without conducting any
inquiry - No right of hearing is reserved with the probationer and
hence, there would be no violation of principles of natural justice
in such a case - Test is, whether, in a given case the termination
is simpliciter or by way of punishment - Even though a probationer
has no right to hold a post, it would not imply that the mandate
of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution could be violated inasmuch
as there cannot be any arbitrary or discriminatory discharge or
1458
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
an absence of application of mind in the matter of assessment
of performance and consideration of relevant materials - Thus,
in deciding whether, in a given case, a termination was by way
of punishment or not, the courts to look into the substance of
the matter and not the form - Constitution of India - Arts 14, 16.
[Paras 12, 12.3]
Gender justice - Women in Indian judiciary - Role in promoting
gender equality - Prevention of discrimination during
pregnancy and maternity - Consequences of miscarriage -
Elucidation:
Held: There has been entry of women into the legal profession,
the retention of women and growth of their numbers in the
profession, and the advancement of women to senior echelons of
the profession - Greater representation of women in the judiciary,
would improve the overall quality of judicial decision making -
Advancing women's greater participation in the judiciary also plays
a role in promoting gender equality - Freedom from discrimination
or equal protection of the laws during pregnancy and maternity of
a woman are precious rights for women workforce - If pregnancy
results in the birth of a child, it brings not only joy to the parents
of the child but also sense of fulfilment to the young mother -
On the other hand, a pregnancy miscarriage has deep physical,
mental and psychological aftereffects on a woman - Though there
is varying amount of physical aftereffects, the psychological and
social effects may be more severe and long lasting - Miscarriage
affects a person's identity, leading to disappointments and
challenges to motherhood identity and role, stigma and isolation,
amongst other aspects - It is not enough to find comfort solely in
the growing number of female judicial officers if a sensitive work
environment and guidance cannot be secured for them - High Court
erred in acting agnostic to, inter alia, claims of insubordination of
petitioner-S and acute medical and emotional conditions battled by
petitioner-A - Despite still reeling from the effects of a severe case
of Covid-19 and a miscarriage, the ACR for 2021 of petitioner-A was
downgraded by the Portfolio Judge from 'B-Very Good' to 'C-Good'
only considering 'pendency and disposal' - While gender is not a
rescue for poor performance but it is a critical consideration which
must weigh for holistic decision-making at certain times and stages
of a woman judicial officer. [Paras 17-17.4, 17.7]
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1459
Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Case Law Cited
Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India [1984] 2 SCR 453 : (1984) 2
SCC 369; Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National
Centre for Basis Sciences, Calcutta [1999] 1 SCR 532 : (1999) 3
SCC 60; Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2024]
8 SCR 901 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139; Registrar General,
High Court of Gujarat v. Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti [2013]
11 SCR 395 : (2013) 16 SCC 59; Khem Chand v. Union of India
[1958] SCR 1080; Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi
PGI of Medical Sciences [2001] Supp. 5 SCR 41 : (2002) 1 SCC
520; Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P [2000] 3 SCR 529 :
(2000) 5 SCC 152; Amar Singh v. Union of India [2011] 6 SCR
403 : (2011) 7 SCC 69; Dr. Vijayakumaran CPV v. Central University
of Kerala & Ors. [2020] 3 SCR 374 : (2020) 12 SCC 426; State
of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra [1971] 2 SCR 191 : (1970) 2
SCC 871; Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab [1975] 1 SCR 814 :
(1974) 2 SCC 831 : AIR 1974 SC 2192; Jagdish Mitter v. Union of
India, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 75 : AIR 1964 SC 449; Parshotam
Lal Dhingra v. Union of India [1958] SCR 828 : AIR 1958 SC 36;
Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India (2009) 16 SCC 146;
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited v. Tarun Kanti
Sengupta [1986] 2 SCR 178 : (1986) 3 SCC 156; Ishwar Chand
Jain v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana [1988] Supp. 1 SCR
396 : (1988) 3 SCC 370; High Court of Madhya Pradesh v. Satya
Narayan Jhavar [2001] Supp. 1 SCR 532 : (2001) 7 SCC 161;
Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Secondary School v. JAJ
Vasu Sena [2019] 12 SCR 881 : (2019) 17 SCC 157; Rajasthan
High Court v. Ved Priya [2020] 4 SCR 971 : (2021) 13 SCC 151;
High Court of Judicature at Patna v. Pandey Madan Mohan Prasad
Sinha (1997) 10 SCC 409; Satya Narayan Athya v. High Court of
Madhya Pradesh [1995] Supp. 5 SCR 679 : (1996) 1 SCC 560;
Rajesh Kohli v. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir [2010] 11 SCR
699 : (2010) 12 SCC 783; Registrar, High Court of Gujarat v. CG
Sharma [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 77 : (2005) 1 SCC 132; Rajesh
Kumar Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand [2011] 3 SCR 823 : (2011)
4 SCC 447; Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial Institute of
Oncology, Bangalore v. Dr. Pandurang Godwalkar [1992] Supp.
2 SCR 250: (1992) 4 SCC 719; Arundhati Ashok Walavalkar v.
State of Maharashtra [2011] 1 SCR 355 : (2011) 11 SCC 324; Ram
Murti Yadav v. State of U.P. [2019] 14 SCR 818 : (2020) 1 SCC
801; Kazia Mohammed Muzzammil v. State of Karnataka [2010]
1460
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7 SCR 1061 : (2010) 8 SCC 155; State of Bihar v. Gopi Kishore
Prasad, AIR 1960 SC 689; Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja v.
Rajkot Municipal Corporation [2007] 10 SCR 1124 : (2007) 10
SCC 71; Indra Pal Gupta v. Managing Committee, Model Inter
College, Thora [1984] 3 SCR 752 : (1984) 3 SCC 384; Hindustan
Paper Corpn. v. Purnendu Chakrobarty & Ors. [1996] Supp. 8
SCR 159 : (1996) 11 SCC 404; Oil & Natural Gas Commission v.
Dr Md. S. Iskender Ali [1980] 3 SCR 603 : (1980) 3 SCC 428;
Principal, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research,
Pondicherry v. S. Andel & Ors. (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 609; Oswal
Pressure Die Casting Industry, Faridabad v. Presiding Officer
(1998) 3 SCC 225; Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya [2020] 3
SCR 833 : (2020) 7 SCC 469; Nitisha v. Indian Army (2021) 15
SCC 125 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
V Klier, P Geller and J Ritsher, 'Affective Disorders in the Aftermath
of Miscarriage: A Comprehensive Review' (2002) 5 Archives of
Women's Mental Health 129-149; Siobhan Quenby and others,
'Miscarriage Matters: The Epidemiological, Physical, Psychological,
and Economic Costs of Early Pregnancy Loss' (2021) The Lancet,
May; P Gerber-Epstein, RD Leichtentritt and Y Benyamini, 'The
Experience of Miscarriage in First Pregnancy: The Women's
Voices' (2008) 33(1) Death Studies 1-29; OB Van den Akker, 'The
Psychological and Social Consequences of Miscarriage' (2011)
6(3) Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 295 - referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment
and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.
List of Keywords
Termination of Judicial Officers; Women judicial officers; Probation;
Reinstatement in service; Administrative Committee of the High
Court; Trainee judge; Vacant court; Full Court; Failure to meet unit
criteria; ACR; Inappropriate behaviour with advocates; Not taking
interest in judicial work; Procedural lapses by trainee judge; Failed
to monitor sensitive/suspicious files; Global pandemic COVID-19;
Annual Inspection report; Judge not recording statement of
complainant; Cordial relations between bar and bench; Portfolio
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1461
Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another
judge; Creating influence on police; Releasing dogs behind
complainant; Unnecessary comments against advocate out of
animosity; Inappropriate post on social media; Adverse remark;
Stigmatic termination; Non-stigmatic termination; Pendency and
disposal of cases; Unit value for criminal cases; Principal Registrar
(Vigilance); Punitive termination; Substantive appointee; Noncommunication of adverse remarks; Unsatisfactory performance
of probationer; Arbitrary or discriminatory discharge; Interpersonal
skills; Managerial skills; Court management; Conduct of business
in court and office; Permission to take criminal action against
judicial officer; Entry of women in legal profession; Promoting
gender equality; Gender stereotypes; Women's representation in
judiciary; Discrimination against women; Right to work; Right to
equal treatment; Equal protection of laws during pregnancy and
maternity; Psychological consequences of miscarriage; Obstetrics
complications; Insidious patriarchal system; Sensitive work
environment for female judicial officers; International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966; Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 142 of 2024
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
With
Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 2 of 2023 and Writ Petition (C) No.
233 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
By Courts Motion.
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, Sumeer Sodhi.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Indira Jaising, R Basant, Sr. Advs., Aditya Vaibhav Singh,
Sarad Kumar Singhania, Arjun Garg, Ms. Kriti Gupta, Ms. Sagun
Srivastava, Brahma Prakash Soni, Ms. Christi Jain, Mann Arora,
Ms. Akriti Sharma, Harsh Jain, Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Ojusya Joshi,
Prem Prakash, Sumeer Sodhi, Varun Tankha, Prasang Sharma,
Sadeeq Ur Rahman, Ms. Sandali Sharma, Bhanwar Pal Singh
1462
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Jadon, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, L C Patne, Gulab Sharma, Hitesh
Sharma, Raghav Pandey, Ms. Sharmishtha Chaudhury, Ms. Charu
Mathur, Gaurav Agrawal.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Nagarathna, J.
INDEX*
Introduction: ................................................................................
3
Genesis of the Controversy: ......................................................
3
Factual Backdrop: .......................................................................
11
Re: Sarita Choudhary - W.P. (C) 142/2024: .......................
11
Re: Aditi Kumar Sharma - W.P.(C) No. 233/2024: ............
24
Submissions of learned Amicus Curiae - Sri Gaurav Aggarwal,
Senior Advocate: .........................................................................
33
Re: Sarita Choudhary: ........................................................
33
Re: Aditi Kumar Sharma: ...................................................
38
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-Sarita Choudhary: ...
42
Submissions on behalf of Petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma: ...
45
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent-High Court: .........
60
Points for Consideration: ...........................................................
71
Discussion: ...................................................................................
76
Analysis: .......................................................................................
90
Re: Sarita Choudhary: .........................................................
90
Re: Aditi Kumar Sharma: .................................................... 101
Women Workforce: Women in the Indian Judiciary: .............. 118
Conclusion: ................................................................................... 123
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1463
Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Introduction:
The careers of two women Judicial Officers out of six have to be
decided in these writ petitions filed by them as well as in Suo Moto
Writ Petition (Civil) No.2 of 2023. Out of six women Judicial Officers
who were terminated from service during their probation period, four
Judicial Officers have been reinstated pursuant to the resolution of
the Full Court of the respondent-Madhya Pradesh High Court dated
01.08.2024 on certain terms. However, insofar as two Judicial Officers,
namely, Ms. Sarita Choudhary and Ms. Aditi Kumar Sharma, there
has been no revocation of the earlier resolution and consequently,
their termination under challenge in these writ petitions have to be
decided by this Court.
Genesis of the Controversy:
2.
On 23.05.2023, six women Judicial Officers serving in the State of
Madhya Pradesh (Civil Judges, Junior Division) were terminated on
the recommendation of the Administrative Committee of High Court of
Madhya Pradesh. Earlier that month, the Administrative Committees
of the High Court had met on 08.05.2023 and 10.05.2023 for
shortlisting of officers for confirmation of judicial officers on probation.
The shortlist were then recommended to the Full Court of the High
Court for confirmation. On 13.05.2023, the High Court issued an
order confirming a list of 403 Judicial Officers and recommending
termination of services, inter alia, of the petitioners herein. On the
basis of the aforesaid order issued by the High Court, the termination
order(s) in respect of, inter alia, the petitioners herein were passed
on 23.05.2023, thereby, discharging the petitioners from their duties.
2.1 On 02.09.2023, three women Judicial Officers of the District
Judiciary of the State of Madhya Pradesh made a representation
to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India alleging their termination
from service as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Madhya
Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1994 (for short, "Recruitment Rules"). Upon
considering the said representation, Hon'ble the Chief Justice
of India, by an administrative Order dated 11.11.2023, directed
that the matter be registered by way of a suo moto writ petition
in respect of all six women judicial officers who were terminated
from service.
1464
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2.2 By the time the matter was registered on 07.12.2023, one of
the Judicial Officers, Ms. Sonakshi Joshi, had filed Writ Petition
(C) No.849/2023 before this Court invoking Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. However, by Order dated 22.08.2023,
she withdrew the said writ petition with liberty to secure relief
from the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Similarly, three other
Officers, namely, (1) Ms. Rachna Atulkar Joshi; (2) Ms. Jyoti
Varkade; and (3) Ms. Priya Sharma, who had also filed Writ
Petition (C) Nos.1325, 1339 and 1357 of 2023 respectively
under Article 32 withdrew their writ petitions with liberty to
approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide order dated
08.12.2023.
2.3 However, as these four petitioners, who withdrew their writ
petitions from this Court, were not aware of the fact that this
Court had registered Suo Moto Writ Petition as Hon'ble the
Chief Justice of India had already taken cognizance of their
grievance, we found it just that notice must be issued to them
in the suo motu writ petition.
2.4 On 23.07.2024, this Court had requested the Full Court of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh to reconsider the termination
of the six women judicial officers. Pursuant to our order dated
23.07.2024, the Full Court of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
re-considered its earlier resolutions and orders impugned in
the suo motu writ petition as well as the other writ petitions,
and consequently, in its 530th Full Court Meeting held on
01.08.2024, four officers, namely, Smt. Jyoti Varkade, Sushri
Sonakshi Joshi, Sushri Priya Sharma, and Smt. Rachna Atulkar
Joshi were considered for reinstatement. However, there was
no quietus to the controversy qua two other officers namely,
Sushri Sarita Choudhary and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma as the
Full Court of the High Court did not deem it proper to reinstate
them. For ease of reference, the extract of the Minutes of 530th
Full Court Meeting dated 01.08.2024 at 5.00 P.M are extracted
as follows: -
"xxx
SUB NO.01. Consideration of the matter relating
to termination of 06 Civil Judges, Junior Division of
Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1465
Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ (C)
No. 2/2023 in Re: Termination of Civil Judge, Junior
Division has been pleased to pass following order
on 23.07.2024: -
"Learned senior counsel and Amicus
Curiae submitted that although earlier,
the concerned Committee had reviewed
the matter and had reiterated its earlier
resolution, nevertheless, the Full Court of
the High Court could reconsider the matter
and depending upon its resolutions, further
consideration of these matters could be
taken up. In the circumstances, we request
the Full Court of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh to reconsider its resolutions and
orders impugned in these suo moto writ
petition and other writ petitions filed by
the parties. On a reconsideration by Full
Court of the High Court, a copy of the
resolution could be placed before this Court
by learned counsel for the respondent-High
Court preferably within a period of four
weeks from today".
In view of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court,
Full Court considered the matter and resolves that
the termination of following 04 Civil Judges, Junior
Division be revoked with a condition that they be
posted as Civil Judge, Junior Division with a probation
period of one year without backwages and they be
placed at the bottom of their respective batch. They
will regain their original seniority subject to their
confirmation.
xxx
Full Court also considered the matter of Sushri Sarita
Choudhary, the then II-Civil Judge Junior Division,
Umaria and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma, the then
V-Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tikamgarh. After
considering their ACRs Gradings, Disposal Statistics,
1466
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Adverse Remarks, complaints made against them and
their overall performance, Full Court is of the view
that the termination of Sushri Sarita Choudhary and
Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma cannot be revoked. In
view thereof Full Court resolves to reiterate its earlier
resolution dated 11.05.2023 in respect of Sushri
Sarita Choudhary and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma.
Full Court further resolves to place adverse remarks
and other material against them before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a sealed cover."
2.5 In these circumstances, the lis in respect of the four officers
stood closed and present adjudication remains only in respect
of petitioner-Sarita Choudhary and petitioner-Aditi Kumar
Sharma. For immediate reference, our order dated 03.09.2024
extracted as under:
"SMW(C) No.2/2023
Pursuant to our order dated 23.07.2024, the Full
Court of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has
re-considered its earlier resolutions and orders
impugned in the suo motu writ petition as well as
other writ petitions filed by the respective petitioners
which is evident by Minutes dated 01.08.2024 of
530th Full Court Meeting held on the said date. The
following four officers, namely, Smt. Jyoti Varkade,
Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, Sushri Priya Sharma and
Smt. Rachna Atulkar Joshi have been considered for
reinstatement subject to certain terms and conditions.
Insofar as two other officers are concerned, namely,
Sushri Sarita Choudhary and Sushri Aditi Kumar
Sharma, there is no revocation of the earlier orders
and resolutions and the Full Court has also further
resolved to place the adverse remarks and other
materials against them before this Court in a sealed
cover.
For ease of reference, the extract of the Minutes of
530th Full Court Meeting dated 01.08.2024 at 5.00
P.M is extracted as follows: -
"xxx
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1467
Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another
SUB NO.01. Consideration of the matter
relating to termination of 06 Civil Judges,
Junior Division of Madhya Pradesh Judicial
Service.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ
(C) No. 2/2023 in Re: Termination of Civil
Judge, Junior Division has been pleased
to pass following order on 23.07.2024:-
"Learned senior counsel and Amicus
Curiae submitted that although earlier,
the concerned Committee had reviewed
the matter and had reiterated its earlier
resolution, nevertheless, the Full Court of
the High Court could reconsider the matter
and depending upon its resolutions, further
consideration of these matters could be
taken up.
In the circumstances, we request the Full
Court of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
to reconsider its resolutions and orders
impugned in these suo moto writ petition
and other writ petitions filed by the parties.
On a reconsideration by Full Court of the
High Court, a copy of the resolution could
be placed before this Court by learned
counsel for the respondent-High Court
preferably within a period of four weeks
from today".
In view of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court,
Full Court considered the matter and resolves that
the termination of following 04 Civil Judges, Junior
Division be revoked with a condition that they be
posted as Civil Judge, Junior Division with a probation
period of one year without backwages and they be
placed at the bottom of their respective batch. They
will regain their original seniority subject to their
confirmation.
1468
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Sr.
No.
Name of the Officers whose termination is
to be revoked
1.
Smt. Jyoti Varkade, the then CJ, Jr. Division,
Timarni [Harda]
2.
Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, the then V AJ To I
CJ, Jr. Division, Morena
3.
Sushri Priya Sharma, the then I CJ,
Jr. Division, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar [Indore]
4.
Smt. Rachna Atulkar Joshi, the then II CJ,
Jr. Division, Teonthar [Rewa]
Full Court also considered the matter of Sushri Sarita
Choudhary, the then II Civil Judge Junior Division,
Umaria and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma, the then
V Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tikamgarh. After
considering their ACRs Gradings, Disposal Statistics,
Adverse Remarks, complaints made against them and
their overall performance, Full Court is of the view
that the termination of Sushri Sarita Choudhary and
Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma cannot be revoked. In
view thereof Full Court resolves to reiterate its earlier
resolution dated 11.05.2023 in respect of Sushri
Sarita Choudhary and Sushri Aditi Kumar Sharma.
Full Court further resolves to place adverse remarks
and other material against them before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a sealed cover."
Learned senior counsel Shri R Basant, appearing
for the aforesaid three officers, namely, Smt. Jyoti
Varkade, Sushri Priya Sharma and Smt. Rachna
Atulkar Joshi submitted that these officers have no
grievance with regard to the resolution passed as
such. The submission regarding payment of salary
from the date of termination till reinstatement is
rejected.
Shri R Basant, learned senior counsel urged that
the High Court may issue orders as expeditiously
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1469
Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another
as possible and within a period of four weeks from
today so that the aforesaid officers on reinstatement
may join their duties.
In the circumstances, the lis in suo motu writ petition
in respect of the four officers stand closed.
Ms. Tanvi Dubey, learned counsel, who appeared for
Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, also submitted that her client
has accepted the aforesaid resolution.
It is needless to observe that these officers on
regaining their original seniority as stated above, shall
be granted continuity in service and all consequential
benefits except back wages.
Insofar as Sushri Sarita Choudhary and Sushri Aditi
Kumar Sharma are concerned, the Full Court has
stated that Resolutions and Orders passed as against
them cannot be revoked.
We appreciate the assistance rendered by learned
senior counsel and learned Amicus Curiae and
learned counsel who have appeared for the respective
parties and particularly Shri Arjun Garg, who has
appeared for the High Court.
List the matter on 24.09.2024 to hear regarding the
case of other two judicial officers."
3.
We find it necessary to briefly enumerate the facts relevant to the
career trajectory and service details of the two petitioners and other
necessary facts relevant to the present adjudication.
Factual Backdrop:
Re: Sarita Choudhary - W.P. (C) 142/2024:
3.1 By Order Fa.No.3(B)3/2015/21-B(One), issued in December
2016, the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs of the
respondent-State appointed the Petitioner in W.P. (C) 142/2024
to the post of Civil Judge Class-II (Entry Level) in the Madhya
Pradesh Judicial Service on probation of two years from the
1470
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
date she assumed charge. On 25.01.2017, the said petitioner
was appointed as Civil Judge, Class-2 on probation for two
years. Her initial positing as a trainee Judge was at Raisen,
Madhya Pradesh. For this period, the petitioner has drawn
our attention to the fact that for her first year as a trainee
judge i.e. for the period from 25.01.2017 to 31.12.2017, the
Annual Confidential Report (ACR) was initially graded by the
District Judge as "good" or "very good" and "satisfactory" on
all parameters. However, subsequently the Portfolio Judge
converted the grading to C (good). A perusal of the ACR
reveals that explicitly no shortcomings were found despite
the fact that an adverse entry was later communicated to the
petitioner on 28.08.2018.
3.2 In the following year, on 05.02.2018, High Court transferred
the petitioner to Shajapur as First Civil Judge Class-II on
independent charge in the regular vacant court. Her ACR for
the period from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018 recorded a final
grade of 'B-Very Good' and also noted that she had good
conduct, was sincere and polite, and her judicial work was
good in both quantity as well as quality. Pertinent to note is
that in this time period, she earned a total of 1233.96 units
within 220 standard working days; however, her civil units
earned stood at 83.05.
3.3 We note that during the aforesaid time period, the petitioner
was posted in a vacant court, which understandably does not
see a high disposal rate in civil matters as Judicial Officers are
required to re-initiate and kickstart the entire machinery of civil
suits, sometimes from the issuance of notice(s).
3.4 Notably, her ACR for the period 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019
carried a demoted graded of 'C-Good'. However, she was still
reported to display good conduct of business in court and in
office. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondentHigh Court that this degrading was due to three complaints
that were filed against the petitioner in the year 2019. These
complaints alleged that the petitioner had failed to conduct
proceedings as per law, and in a criminal case even passed
an order despite pendency of counter cases. Learned Amicus
and learned senior counsel for the petitioner highlighted that
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1471
Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another
despite the number or nature of these complaints, it was
considered just by the Chief Justice of the High Court to close
all three complaints simply with warnings to the petitioner. She
was noted to be an average judicial officer as far as sincerity
and punctuality were concerned and her quality of judgment
was appreciated to be good. Despite a nearly threefold jump
in units earned from 83.05 to 234.15, she had failed to earn
the prescribed civil units. It is pertinent to consider that the
ACR noted as improvable her management, initiative, planning,
relations with advocates, staff and colleague judicial officers.
In our view, equally relevant is a letter that was issued to the
petitioner on 27.11.2020 stating that the remarks in the ACR
for the year 2019 were only advisory in nature and meant for
future guidance. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, Sri Basant contended that this Court must be alive
to the fact that despite some complaints - which were closed
with only warnings - the ACR of the petitioner observed her
as a good judicial officer and all the adverse remarks were
admittedly only advisory in nature.
3.5 Petitioner-Ms. Sarita Choudhary was then transferred to
Goharganj (Raisen) as 2nd Civil Judge, where she joined on
25.11.2019. A perusal of her ACR for the period from 01.01.2020
to 31.12.2020 reflects that she was graded 'D i.e. Average'.
Furthermore, her ACR noted that her conduct of business was
not satisfactory as she lacked effective control over staff and
did not take initiative to clear pending cases. The petitioner was
recorded to have failed to achieve her unit criteria and also
lacked in punctuality, seriousness, transparency, and quality in
judicial work, cordiality with staff and advocates, and team work.
Two complaints were also filed against the petitioner in 2020
for lack of punctuality and in respect of an error made by the
petitioner whilst granting bail in a non-bailable offence. Perusal
of material on record shows that both of these complaints were
met with warnings from the Chief Justice and finally closed.
Adverse remarks made in the ACR were replied to by the
petitioner through a representation.
3.6 After completion of three years of probation, the petitioner's
case was considered for confirmation by the Administrative
1472
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Committee of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 24.07.2020,
but the same was deferred in view of the pending complaints.
3.7 It is also necessary to note that in March 2020, in the wake of
Covid-19 pandemic, the unit criteria - a quantitative metric used
to assess performance of Judicial Officers - applicable to District
Judiciary including Family Courts in Madhya Pradesh, was
suspended from 16.03.2020 till 31.03.2020. As the continuing
nature of the pandemic revealed itself, the unit criteria was
eventually suspended till 31.12.2020. Pertinent to note is that
throughout 2020, several circulars had been issued by Madhya
Pradesh High Court regulating the limited functioning of the
District Judiciary. It was only on 11.12.2020 that the Madhya
Pradesh High Court issued directions to start regular but limited
physical functioning in District Courts.
3.8 For the following year being 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021, her ACR
grade again witnessed a decline to 'E - Poor'. It was noted that
the judicial work of the officer was not up to the mark. Although
she was noted to be efficient and had good grasp over the
subject of law, the assessing officer recorded that she lacked
sincerity and did not fulfil her administrative tasks. It was noted
that she failed to meet her unit criteria. While she disposed of
124 cases pending for more than three years, achieved 756.5
units, and also achieved 122 units through ADR, it was noted
that she failed to dispose of even a single contested civil case.
Upon comparing this ACR to the year prior, it will be seen that
the ACR noted that she had good personal relationships and
good team work. This finding in the ACR merits consideration
as it finds place despite two complaints filed in 2021 alleging
misbehaviour with colleagues, advocates, staff, parties/witness/
prosecution. Pertinently, both complaints were closed with
advisories to the petitioner from the Chief Justice of Madhya
Pradesh High Court.
3.9 Our attention was drawn to the improvement of her ACR for
the period from 01.01.2022 to 31.12.2022. This ACR assigned
to petitioner was a significant improvement from 'E - Poor' to
grade 'C - Good'. It was noted that her understanding of law
and application in her judgments was appropriate and wellreasoned. Her ability to efficiently dispose of the cases was
seen as reflective of her good legal knowledge.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1473
Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another
3.10 Per contra, it was highlighted that several complaints were
filed against the petitioner in 2022.
(i)
Complaint No. 81/2022 dt. 12.01.2022 alleged procedural
lapses and inappropriate behaviour with advocates, parties
or witnesses. Vide Order dt.22.03.2023, the Chief Justice
of the High Court warned the petitioner to be careful in
future and to ensure that lapses should not be repeated.
(ii)
Similar was the outcome of Complaint No.877/2022 dt.
29.09.2022 which was filed alleging misbehaviour by
petitioner in RCT No.310/2019, titled "State vs. Kanhaiya
Lal".
(iii) However, in respect of 2022, one Complaint bearing
No.992/2022 (21.12.2022) wherein it was alleged that
petitioner failed to monitor 321 sensitive/suspicious files/
cases and keep track of those files, the file was kept in
abeyance by order dated 28.06.2023 of the Chief Justice
of Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner highlighted that
321 suspicious cases were indeed discovered in an almirah
(cabinet/storage) in the court room but those cases were
related to predecessor judges. A departmental inquiry was
conducted targeting the clerical staff involved, and one specific
staff member D.R. Ahirwar at position Execution Clerk was
identified and found guilty of dereliction of duty.
3.11 During her posting at Raisen, the petitioner failed to achieve
unit criteria as she achieved only 3.36 units per day. Similarly,
petitioner failed to achieve the target on civil side as she
achieved only 30.80 units. However, out of 25 targeted old
cases, the petitioner successfully disposed of 100% cases.
3.12 Dissecting and inferring from these facts, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the fact
that the latest ACR immediately before her termination in
2023 had in fact noted her to be a 'Good' judicial officer and
even observed that she had good decisive nature, managerial
skill, and that she maintained good relationships in the team.
3.13 Soon thereafter, on 10.04.2023, Ms. Sarita Choudhary
was again transferred to Umaria as 2nd Civil Judge, Junior
1474
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Division. Only a month thereafter, on 13.05.2023, the Madhya
Pradesh High Court recommended termination of services
of the petitioner. This was followed by Termination Order dt.
23.05.2023 which was received by petitioner on 26.05.2023.
Surprisingly, on 09.10.2023 i.e. several months after her
termination, adverse remarks made in petitioner's ACR for the
year 2021 were communicated to the Judicial Officer.
3.14 For ease of reference, relevant information pertaining to
Petitioner-Sarita Choudhary are tabulated hereunder:
ACR GRADING TABLE
PERIOD
GRADE
25.01.2017 to 31.12.2018
C- Good
01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018
B- Very Good
01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019
C-Good
01.01.2020 to 31.12.2020
D-Average
01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021
E-Poor
01.01.2022 to 31.12.2022
C-Good
UNIT VALUE
YEAR
VALUE
2017
Trainee Judge
2018
7.11
2019
8.53
2020
3.72
Learned Amicus emphasized before this Court
that for the pre-Covid period, her unit value
was 9.3 as per page 73 of reply.
2021
6.47
2022
3.36
(3.64 as per page 108 of reply)
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1475
Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another
LIST OF COMPLAINTS
S.
NO
COMPLAINT
NO. & DATE
COMPLAINT
ACTION
2019
1
26/2019 dt.
10.01.2019
In Case
No.369/2016, titled
"Vipin Bedle vs.
Rajesh Malviya"
the petitioner did
not proceed as per
law
Complaint disposed
of by Hon'ble Chief
Justice by order
dated 25.01.2020.
2
311/2019 dt.
24.04.2019 &
407/2019 dt.
07.06.2019
Cases not
conducted as per
law
Warning by Hon'ble
Chief Justice
vide order dated
19.09.2021.
3
408/2019 dt.
07.06.2019
No.1501281/2016
(State of MP vs.
Umaravlal)- Passed
orders in Cr. Nonrecordable Case
despite counter
cases are pending
adjudication.
Non-recordable
Warning dated
19.09.2021 by
Hon'ble Chief
Justice.
2020
4
354/2020 dt.
24.07.2020
Remained not
punctual despite
repeated warnings
Advised not to leave
the headquarters
without prior
permission and
to sit on the dais
on time and not
to leave the dais
before court working
hours vide order
dated 28.01.2023
by Hon'ble Chief
Justice.
1476
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
S.
NO
COMPLAINT
NO.