Back
2007 Supreme(Gau) 719
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Amitava Roy and Brojendra Prasad Katakey, JJ.
Deba Kumar Das - Appellants
Vs.
Gauhati High Court and Ors. - Respondent
Decided on : 16.10.2007
Headnote:
Petitioner, a Judicial Magistrate, challenged the termination of his probation and the consequent restraint from discharging judicial works, contending that he had completed the maximum period of probation prescribed by the relevant service rules, and therefore, he could neither be treated as on probation nor there was any scope to terminate his probationary service. The Court held that the petitioner had been continuing as a probationer under the Rules on the date of the resolution of the Administrative Committee and the impugned decision, and that the impugned decision was not punitive in nature. The Court also held that the requirement of circulation of the resolutions of the Administrative Committee to be obligatory is not supported by the Rules governing the petitioner, and that the Administrative Committee having been entrusted with the power to decide on the matters catalogued in Rule 3 of the Court Rules without reference to the other Judges, the necessity of circulation of its resolutions logically would be only to keep them cognizant thereof.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Judicial Magistrate, challenged the termination of his probation and the consequent restraint from discharging judicial works, contending that he had completed the maximum period of probation prescribed by the relevant service rules, and therefore, he could neither be treated as on probation nor there was any scope to terminate his probationary service.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner had been continuing as a probationer under the Rules on the date of the resolution of the Administrative Committee and the impugned decision, and that the impugned decision was not punitive in nature. The Court also held that the requirement of circulation of the resolutions of the Administrative Committee to be obligatory is not supported by the Rules governing the petitioner, and that the Administrative Committee having been entrusted with the power to decide on the matters catalogued in Rule 3 of the Court Rules without reference to the other Judges, the necessity of circulation of its resolutions logically would be only to keep them cognizant thereof.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had completed the maximum period of probation prescribed by the relevant service rules, and therefore, he could neither be treated as on probation nor there was any scope to terminate his probationary service. 2. Whether the impugned decision was punitive in nature. 3. Whether the requirement of circulation of the resolutions of the Administrative Committee to be obligatory is supported by the Rules governing the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner had been continuing as a probationer under the Rules on the date of the resolution of the Administrative Committee and the impugned decision, and that the impugned decision was not punitive in nature. 2. The Court held that the requirement of circulation of the resolutions of the Administrative Committee to be obligatory is not supported by the Rules governing the petitioner, and that the Administrative Committee having been entrusted with the power to decide on the matters catalogued in Rule 3 of the Court Rules without reference to the other Judges, the necessity of circulation of its resolutions logically would be only to keep them cognizant thereof.
Final Decision: Petition dismissed.
Amitava Roy, J.
1. The petitioner, an officer in the Assam Judicial Service in the instant proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has questioned the legality and validity of the decision of this Court on the administrative side, to terminate his probation and pending issuance of the consequential Government notification to that effect to restrain him from discharging judicial works, as contained in the letters dated 22/12/2006 and 11/1/2007 (Annexures 9,8 and 7 to the writ petition). It has been submitted by the learned State Counsel that the related issues being sub-judice before this Court further follow up steps have been deferred. The termination of the petitioner's probation, therefore, has not yet been given effect to though he stands relieved of the judicial duties as on date.
2. We have heard Mr. PK Goswami, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. BM Choudhury and Mr. S. Bharali, Advocates for the petitioner, Mr. PK Mushary, Sr. Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. BC Das, Sr. Advocate and Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court for respondents 1, 2 and 3.
3. The pleaded versions are essential to outline the respective cases of the parties and adequately comprehend the rival submissions. The petitioner has averred that he is a Law Graduate from the Gauhati University and having enrolled himself as an Advocate in the year 1994 initiated his practice as a member of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association. He responded to the advertisement issued by the Gauhati High Court (hereafter referred to also as High Court) as on 21/4/2001 for appointment to the post of Grade III of the Assam Judicial Service (also referred to as Service) and participated in the selection process. On being found suitable, he was appointed by the notification dated 6/4/2002 of the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department, along with 25 others in the Grade HI of the Service. The High Court by notification dated 12/4/2002 posted him as Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class at Morigaon on probation for a period of one year from the date of appointment. He accordingly joined the said post on 22/4/2002. He was thereafter upgraded and promoted as Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1 cum Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Morigaon. In April, 2005, he was transferred from Morigaon to Hojai, Sankar Dev Nagar as Judicial Magistrate 1st Class and had been functioning in the station since then.
4. According to the petitioner, he had been discharging his duties with due diligence without any reservation about the quality of his service from any quarter. While he was on earned leave w.e.f. 14/12/2006 till 21/1/07 on medical ground, he came across a newspaper report disclosing that a criminal case being Tinsukia PS. Case No. 70/2002 under Section 420 IPC had been registered against him and that the police from the Tinsukia Police Station had visited his place of posting at Hojai, Sankar Dev Nagar on 18/12/2006 in connection therewith. The petitioner has contended that he had no knowledge of the pendency of the criminal case before the above disclosure in the newspaper. On enquiries being made by him, he thereafter came to learn that one Pabitra Das had lodged an FIR before the Officer in Charge, Tinsukia Police Station alleging that in the month of June/July 1999, he had applied for allotment of a Foreign Liquor out let to the Excise Department, Government of Assam, and in the process had met the petitioner who had introduced himself to be the proprietor of a local daily "Ajir Natun Asom" as well as a member of the Approval Committee of Foreign Liquor. He also represented to have a subsisting cordial relation with the Chief Minister and the Excise Minister of the State and assured the informant that he would get his work done on financial returns. The FIR further recorded that on 16/9/1999, the petitioner visited the residence of the informant and received Rs. 1 Lakh in that regard. Thereafter the informant paid 1,20,000/- by drafts
