Back
2001 Supreme(Kar) 239
Karnataka High Court
RAMESH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (ADMN) - Respondent
Decided On : 03-28-01
W.P. : 13072 of 1998
M.Narayanappa, SUBASH B.ADI
The discharge of a probationer without a fair opportunity to remedy alleged shortcomings and without adequate support for the reasons of discharge is unjust.
Headnote:
PROBATION - Discharge of Judicial Officer - Karnataka Civil Services (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1983 - Article 234 of the Constitution of India - Rule 5 (i) (b) of the Probationary Rules, 1977
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a judicial officer, was discharged from service by the Government on the ground of unsuitability after completing the probation period. The petitioner contended that he had completed the probation period satisfactorily and was not given any prior notice or reason for discharge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had completed the probation period satisfactorily and was not given a fair opportunity to remedy any alleged shortcomings. The Court also noted that the reports on the petitioner's performance were largely favorable, and the reasons for discharge were not adequately supported.
Issues: The issues involved the completion of the probation period, the petitioner's performance, and the fairness of the discharge process.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the discharge of a probationer without a fair opportunity to remedy alleged shortcomings and without adequate support for the reasons of discharge is unjust. The Court also emphasized the importance of considering the probationer's performance reports in such cases.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of discharge and allowed the Writ Petition as prayed for.
( 1 ) THE writ petitioner prays for issue of a writ of certiqrari to quash annexure-E in No. LAW. 30. LAC. 98 dated 13. 3,1998 issued by the first respondent.
( 2 ) IT is (he case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the notification issued by the Government on 10. 1. 1991, he has applied and was appointed as Munsiff by the Government of Karnataka, by notification No. LAW. 117. LAC. 91 dated 25. 6. 1991 in exercise of the powers conferred under. Article 234 of the Constitution of India in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1983. The petitioner was at SI. No. 1 in the list prepared in the order of merit and he joined the service on 15. 7. 1991. After successfully completing two months munsiff training. he was posted to Ankola Munsiff and JMFC Court, where he worked till August 1992. It is submitted that Ankola Bar is very small one and most of the Advocates come from Karwar and kumta.
( 3 ) THE petitioner was transferred from Ankola Munsiff and JMFC Court to Chittapur in Gulbarga District in September, 1992. On the ground of health problem, due to climatic condition, he voiced for a transfer and was transferred to Kolar in December, 1992, where he worked up to April, 1994. From there he was transferred to Mangalore where he had worked from June 1994 to October 1994 as a I Add ). Munsiff Court arid latter in October 1994 to April 1995 as II Addl. Munsiff, In April 1995 he was asked to take additional charges of prl. Munsiff Court. It is claimed that though he was trying his level best to reach the target prescribed, for lack of proper cooperation or otherwise in the Bar, he could not reach the target. But however he kept the average disposal showing the progress in the disposal of the cases in June 1996 and March 1997, his quota of disposal was a fixed by the High Court.
( 4 ) IN August 1996 he was made JMFC from Principal Munsiff Court, Bantwal, and his junior was made Prl. Munsiff, though the petitioner had shown the maximum disposal during that period. In march 1997, the petitioner was again transferred to Afzalpur which is a remote place in Gulbarga District. It is submitted that filing of original suit is about 50 per year and even I. P. c. cases also comparatively less than any other place. The Bar strength was also very low, inasmuch as, only four permanent Advocates were practicing and the Court was established only in November 1993. Despite low filing, the petitioner had disposed of as many as 4 suits in March 1997 along with three IPC cases and 2 Misc. cases in april 1997. During May 1997, the High Court introduced the Pilot project for Gulbarga District. Under the said project, the requisite disposal was fixed at 24 unit i. e. , 24 original suits in a month. Two ipc cases are equal to one original suit and six cases in other laws were equal to one unit i. e. , one original suit. During June 1997 to september 1997, the petitioner had reached the full target and in october 1997 on account of vacation and earned leave the petitioner had completed half quota. During November 1997 and also in december 1997, on account of vacation, he had completed half target. Sn January 1998 he had reached 24 unit by disposing the number of IPC and Original Suit cases. In February 1998 on account of Ramzan and also on account of election, the disposal rate was low as the attendance of the Advocates was lean. Still, the petitioner had completed his half quota of disposal of about 12 suits. In March 1998 also the petitioner had disposed of 3 original suits and 12 IPC cases. By March 1998, the petitioner was able to bring down the pendency of original suits to only at 40 and as many as 200 IPC cases were disposed of in Afzalpur, apart from disposal of more than 60 other law cases and 125 Misc. cases.
( 5 ) AS required under the Probation Rutes, the petitioner was required to pass Kannada language examination. He made an application during 1996 through the Distric
