Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1813
High Court of Delhi
SANJIV KHANNA & V. KAMESWAR RAO, JJ.
Chandra Bose
Versus
Hon’Ble Lt. Governor Nct of Delhi & Another
W.P.(C). No. 1169 of 2013
Decided on : 01-08-2014
For the Petitioner:Arjun Mitra, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2, Karan Mehta, for Viraj R. Datar, Advocates.
Confirmation pre-supposes a specific procedure to be followed, and there is no concept of 'deemed confirmation' under the applicable rules.
Headnote:
deemed confirmation - Delhi Judicial Service - Rule 12, Rule 13, Rule 15 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 12, Rule 13, and Rule 15 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, which govern appointment, probation, and confirmation. The court emphasized that confirmation pre-supposes a specific procedure to be followed and there is no concept of 'deemed confirmation' under the rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed in Delhi Judicial Service in 1992 and was promoted to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on a temporary basis in 2006. After a charge-sheet was issued, the petitioner's probation was extended, and subsequently, the petitioner was reverted to the original position in 2012.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's probation could be extended beyond 3 years, and there was no 'deemed confirmation' as the specific procedure for confirmation was not followed. The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the proceedings should have been kept in sealed cover and found no fault in the decision of the Full Court to not confirm the petitioner.
Issues: The issues included the extension of probation, the concept of 'deemed confirmation', and the decision of the Full Court to not confirm the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there is no concept of 'deemed confirmation' under the applicable rules and emphasized that confirmation pre-supposes a specific procedure to be followed. The court also noted that the scope of judicial review in matters of confirmation on probation is well settled.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
1. The issue of ‘deemed confirmation’ even though well settled has once again been raised in this writ petition under the guise of challenging the order dated May 24, 2012, whereby the petitioner has been reverted to his original position in Delhi Judicial Service with immediate effect.
2. The facts as culled out from the record are that the petitioner was appointed in Delhi Judicial Service (‘DJS’ in short) on November 02, 1992 with initial posting as a Metropolitan Magistrate. With effect from January 04, 2006 the petitioner along with others was promoted to Delhi Higher Judicial Service in terms of Rule 7(a) read with Rule 16(2) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (‘Rules’ in short) on temporary basis. On May 09, 2007 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of All India Service Rules. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings an order dated October 09, 2009 was issued whereby the officers promoted along with the petitioners were on confirmation appointed in substantive capacity in Delhi Higher Judicial Service with effect from 2008. The petitioner was not confirmed. The probation of the petitioner was extended vide order dated August 18, 2010 for a period of one year. Subsequently thereafter on May 24, 2012 the petitioner stood reverted to his original position of Delhi Judicial Service.
3. The respondent no.2 do not dispute the facts as narrated above. Part IV of the Rules which governs the appointment, probation and confirmation reads as under:
12. (1) Persons appointed to the service at the initial recruitment shall stand confirmed with effect from the date of appointment.
(2) All other candidates on appointment to permanent post shall be on probation for a period of two years.
EXPLANATION:- The period during which an officer hold a temporary post will be counted towards probation but he will be confirmed only when a permanent post is available.
13. All persons appointed to the service on probation shall be confirmed at the end of the said period of two years.
Provided that the Administrator may, on the recommendation of the High Court, extend the period of probation, but in no case shall the period of probation extend beyond the period of three years.
14. The service of person appointed on probation are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason.
15. After successful completion of the period of probation the officer shall be confirmed in the service by the Administrator in consulation with the High Court and the same shall be notified in the Delhi Gazette.”
4. Mr.Arjun Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in terms of Rule 12 read with Rule 13 of the Rules, the probation could not have been extended beyond 3 years. He would state that 3 years were completed on January 03, 2009 and on that date the petitioner deemed to have been confirmed. That apart it was his submission that even assuming a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on the date when other similarly placed officers have been appointed on substantive basis, the proceeding insofar as the petitioner was concerned should have been kept in sealed cover. That apart it was his case that the Inquiry Officer had submitted her report on January 07, 2010, wherein the charges against the petitioner could not be proved, the extension of probation vide order dated August 18, 2010 for a further period of one year was unjustified both on the ground that there cannot be extension beyond a period of 3 years and also there was no material with the Competent Authority to extend the probation as the petitioner stood exonerated. He would also state that the impugned order has been passed on May 24, 2012 that too after 9 months of completing the extended period of probation. He would further state, there was nothing adverse against the petitioner as no adverse ACRs were ever communicated and extending the probation or reverting the petitioner to his subs
