ORDER

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court dated 22-10-1990 whereby the High Court has allowed the writ petition (CWJC No. 2046 of 1987) filed by Respondent 1 challenging the validity of the order dated 29-8-1986 terminating his services. 2. Respondent 1 was appointed as Munsif by order dated 15-3-1974. The said appointment was on probation for a period of two years. The matter of confirmation of Respondent 1 was considered by the High Court on a number of occasions from time to time but he was not found fit for confirmation even though recommendations had been made by the District Judges concerned for his confirmation. On 19-6-1985 after considering the matter of confirmation of Respondent 1 and finding that he was not fit for confirmation, the High Court decided that a recommendation be made to the State Government that the temporary services of Respondent 1 as Munsif are no longer required and that his services should be terminated. The said decision of the High Court was communicated to the State Government by letter dated 5-8-1985. A communication was also sent to the District Judge, Hazaribagh to withdraw all cases from the court of Respondent 1 and that he should not be given any judicial work. A communication dated 2-9-1985 was received from State Government whereby the State Government requested that the grounds for termination of the services of Respondent 1 may be furnished. The Standing Committee of the High Court in its meeting held on 4-12-1985 decided that the adverse materials in the service record of Respondent 1 should be communicated to the State Government and in pursuance of the said decision the said material was communicated to the State Government by letter dated 5-3-1986. It was also decided to communicate the said adverse material to Respondent 1 and in pursuance of the said decision, the adverse remarks in the service record of Respondent 1 were communicated to him by the District Judge, Hazaribagh. Thereafter, the order dated 29-8-1986 was passed whereby the services of Respondent 1 were terminated. It appears that Respondent 1 submitted a representation dated 28-8-1986, against the adverse remarks. The said representation was considered by the Standing Committee of the High Court on 15-9-1986, and was rejected. Respondent 1 thereupon filed the writ petition in the High Court which has given rise to this appeal.

3. Before the High Court a number of contentions were raised by Respondent 1 but the writ petition of Respondent 1 has been allowed by the High Court on two grounds, namely, (1) the adverse remarks in the confidential reports of Respondent 1 were communicated to him after the High Court had taken the decision on 19-6-1985 for termination of services of Respondent 1 and the said non-communication of the adverse remarks prior to the High Court taking the said decision vitiates the order for termination of services of Respondent 1; and (2) the order for termination of services of Respondent 1 was passed by way of punishment without complying with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Hence this appeal by the a High Court.

4. Shri Gopal Subramanium, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has assailed the findings recorded by the High Court on both these grounds. The learned counsel has submitted that since Respondent 1 was only a probationer, he had no right to hold the post and it was not necessary to communicate the adverse remarks in his confidential reports. According to the learned counsel the uncommunicated adverse remarks could legitimately form the basis for the High Court to come to a decision whether Respondent 1 was fit for being confirmed on the post of Munsif or not. It has been urged that the status of a probationer, who has no right to hold the post, cannot be equated with that of a confirmed employee having a right to hold the post and since Respondent 1, being a probationer, did not h