( 1 ) IN this case the petitioner is questioning the validity of the order No. LAW 49 LAC 96, dated 13/16-5-1996, communicated by the first respondent-Law Secretary (Annexure-J ). This order has been passed by the Governor of Karnataka discharging the petitioner from service since he was found unsuitable to hold the post of Munsiff. It has been passed in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 6 (1) of Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1976.

( 2 ) UNDISPUTED facts. The petitioner was appointed as munsiff on probation by Notification No. LAW 59 LAC 92, dated 7-7-1992 and was posted as Additional Munsiff and Judicial magistrate First Class at Bellary, where he assumed the charge from 1-9-1992. The initial period of probation was of two years but the same was extended by one more year with effect from 25-7-1994. During the said period the petitioner was transferred from Bellary District to Belgaum District.

( 3 ) THE Administrative Committee No. III of High Court in its meeting held on 6-2-1996, considered the question of satisfactory completion of the period of probation of the Munsiffs appointed during the year 1992. On a review of the confidential records and the remarks based on assessment of their work as sent by the Principle District Judges, the Committee recorded its opinion. In respect of the petitioner it was found that his performance as a Judicial Officer was too poor to be considered as satisfactory for his confirmation to the post. Accordingly, the committee recommended to the Full Court that the petitioner be discharged from service. This recommendation was considered by the Full Court in its meeting held on 26-3-1996 and it was resolved to accept the same. Pursuant thereto the Registrar general of the High Court (respondent 2) made a reference to the Law Secretary requesting him to initiate necessary action in the said regard. As a result thereof the impugned order of discharge came to be passed.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the grounds that it has been passed on the ipse dixit opinion of the district Judge and further that the extension of the period of probation by the High Court should be taken as an evidence of satisfactory completion of his initial period of probation. It has further been submitted by the petitioner that the order of discharge on the ground of unsuitability should be taken as stigma against the petitioner and therefore such an order could not have been passed except by holding an enquiry and failure to do so has resulted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It has also been asserted that the impugned order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and is thus liable to be quashed.

( 5 ) I have heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person, and Mr. N. K. Ramesh, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also carefully gone through the averments made in the writ petition and the statement of objections. Learned High Court Government pleader has also produced the original records for reference by the Court.

( 6 ) IN the present case, the foundational facts are all admitted. The questions raised basically pertains to the competence of the governor to discharge a probationer on the ground of unsuitability and the procedure to be followed in that regard. Detailed arguments have also been advanced regarding the extent of the permissibility of judicial interference in such cases. I will be delving on these legal issues hereinafter.

( 7 ) RULE 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1. 976 (herein after in short 'the rules') under which the impugned order is passed is to the following effect. "discharge of a probationer during the period of probation. (1) Notwithstanding anything in Rule 5, the appointing Authority may, at any time during the period of probation, discharge from service a probationer on grounds arising out of the conditions, if any, imposed by the rules