Back
2011 (2) Supreme 381
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava — Appellant
versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2419 of 2011
[Arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 8463 of 2009]
Decided on : 10-3-2011
Facts of the Case :
An Application was filed by appellant herein in the instant case offering himself as a candidate for the post of Munsif to be recruited by respondents for which an advertisement was also issued.Appellant was appointed as a Probationer Munsif at Dhanbad. While discharging his duties as such, he passed an order , discharging all the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in case registered under Sections 406, 408, 420, 120-B IPC. Order was passed by Government of Jharkhand, stating that services of appellant were no longer required in public interest. Writ Petition thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
At the time when impugned order was passed, appellant was working as a Probationer Munsif. A person is placed on probation so as to enable the employer to adjudge his suitability for continuation in the service and also for confirmation in service. At that stage and during period of probation action and activities of appellant are generally under scrutiny and on the basis of his overall performance a decision is generally taken as to whether his services should be continued and that he should be confirmed, or he should be released from service. Instantly , in the course of adjudging such suitability it was found by respondents that performance of appellant was not satisfactory and therefore he was not suitable for the job. Said decision to release him from service was taken by respondents considering his overall performance, conduct and suitability for the job. While taking a decision in this regard neither any notice is required to be given to the appellant nor he is required to be given any opportunity of hearing. Strictly speaking, it was not a case of removal , but was a case of simple discharge from service.- It was, therefore, only a termination simpliciter and not removal from service on the grounds of indiscipline or misconduct. No infirmity found in the impugned judgment and order passed by High Court. Appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein submitted his application offering himself as a candidate for the post of Munsif to be recruited by the respondents for which an advertisement was also issued. Pursuant to the aforesaid application filed by the appellant, he was called to appear in the various tests held, including the interview conducted by the High Court. He successfully completed his tests and consequently was declared successful in the year 2001.
3. After completing his training period, a notification was issued on 21.05.2002, appointing him as a Probationer Munsif. The said notification was issued by the Government of Jharkhand. He was posted at Dhanbad by a notification issued by the High Court. On 04.06.2002, he assumed the charge as Probationer Munsif at Dhanbad. On 15.07.2002, he was conferred with the power of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. While he was discharging his duties as such, he passed an order on 06.01.2003, discharging all the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in G.R. No. 4698 of 1995 under Sections 406, 408, 420, 120-B IPC.
4. A complaint from one Ram Kumar was received by the High Court on 04.03.2003, wherein it was alleged that the appellant had discharged the said accused persons, despite rejection of revision application by the High Court earlier. It was also alleged that the aforesaid order discharging the accused was passed for extraneous consideration. The High Court on receipt of the aforesaid complaint called for a report from the District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. On receipt of the said communication, the District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, sent a letter to the appellant directing him to offer his remarks which were submitted by the appellant. The said remarks and report along with confidential report of the appellant were submitted by the District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, before the High Court. On 28.04.2003, the concerned Zonal Judge referred the matter to the Standing Committee for further action. In terms of the decision of the Zonal Judge, the then Chief Justice of the High Court also referred the matter to the Standing Committee by way of recording an order on 01.05.2003. The matter was considered in the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 08.07.2003.
5. After considering the performance and the suitability of the appellant, it was resolved that the matter be referred to the Full Court for consideration, and a decision as to whether or not the continuation of the service of the appellant was required. Consequent thereupon the matter was placed before the Full Court meeting held on 18.07.2003, wherein it was resolved by the Full Court that the continuation of the service of the appellant was no longer required and that he should be discharged. Consequent thereupon the resolution of the Full Court was sent to the Government. The Government of Jharkhand issued an order dated 31.07.2003, stating that the services of the appellant are no longer required in public interest, and therefore, the appellant stands discharged from service with effect from 31.07.2003.
6. Challenging the said order passed by the State Government, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by a detailed order giving reasons for its decision dated 04.04.2008.
7. The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the High Court filed the present appeal in this Court, on which we heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, who had also taken us painstakingly through the records of the case. Having considered the same, we proceed to dispose of the present appeal by recording our reasons for our conclusion.
8. The counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order challenged by way of the Writ Petition was an order of removal and the same having been passed without holding an enquiry amounts to, not only violation of principles of natural justice but also amounts to ca
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
