Discharge of probationers under Rule 6(2) does not require a formal enquiry, and a mere mention of misconduct does not render the order stigmatic.

ORDER :

S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.

The present petition has been filed by the applicant before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi Bench (for short, ‘Tribunal’) challenging the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the Tribunal, whereby, challenge to the impugned order ‘discharging/terminating’ the applicant from service in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 [for short, ‘KCS (Probation) Rules’] came to be rejected. The Tribunal, after a detailed consideration, has rejected the application while upholding the order of ‘discharge/termination’ as being passed in terms of the power conferred under Rule 6(2) of the KCS (Probation) Rules.

2. The facts in brief are that the applicant who was appointed to the post of Armed Police Constable on 05.04.2017 pursuant to a Competitive Examination was posted to the Office of Commissioner of Police, Belagavi City. The applicant’s probation was not declared though other candidates who were appointed with him had the benefit of declaration of successful probation. The applicant's probation was further extended and during such period, a complaint was registered against the applicant alleging that he had allowed another employee to clear the Medical Examination, though he had the disability of eye by resorting to unfair means. In the context of such allegation, a criminal case was registered in Crime No.6/2021 at APMC Police Station, Belagavi City for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 120B of IPC. Though an enquiry was ordered by the employer as regards such conduct, however, the said enquiry came to be withdrawn and the impugned order of ‘discharge/termination’ came to be passed on 12.05.2021.

3. The said order having been upheld by the Tribunal, the applicant is before this Court challenging the order contending that the procedure under Rule 7 of ‘KCS (Probation) Rules’ which relates to termination for misconduct ought to have been followed which provided that, the order of termination ought to be in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 [for short, ‘KCS (CCA) Rules’]. In a nutshell, the contention of the applicant is that, if an order of termination is sought to be made on the premise of misconduct, the same could have been passed only if preceded by an enquiry in terms of the KCS (CCA) Rules.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 28.01.2022 in Sri. Ramesh Malli v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Wireless) and Another, [W.P.No.104944/2021] [Ramesh Malli] as well as the order dated 29.10.2024 passed in The State of Karnataka and Others v. Mahantesh Badaraddi, W.P.No.107773/2023, the judgment of Apex Court in Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation and Another, (2007) 10 SCC 71 [Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja] in support of his contentions.

5. It is the assertion of the applicant that the Court requires to enter into the substance of the order terminating the services of the applicant and in the present case, the order of termination contains references to misconduct and accordingly, though the operative portion of the order, prima facie, would make out a case of discharge simplicitor, the Court should lift the veil, and if it were to find that the order of termination was in substance one for misconduct, then, it ought to be treated to be a termination which is stigmatic and legal consequence of not following the KCS (CCA) Rules ought to result in setting aside of the order of termination.

6. Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents on the other hand, would contend that the impugned order is an order of discharge simplicitor passed under Rule 6(2) of the KCS (Probation) Rules. It is submitted that in terms of Rule 6(2), the grounds of discharge are required to be mentioned in the order and accordingly, the grounds are mentioned in the preamble port