Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, T.S. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
V. Karthikeyan – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai & Another – Respondent
WP. No. 97 of 2016
Decided On : 01-04-2021
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules - Rule 26 - Tamil Nadu Judicial Officers [Cadre and Recruitment] Rules - Rule 11 [2] [3] - Post to Judicial Magistrate - Temporarily Appointed as Civil Judge - Notice for Discharge of Probation - Writ petitioner was temporarily appointed as Civil Judge [Junior Division] in Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services and after administered with Oath of Affirmation, joined judicial services. Petitioner was directed to undergo a training for a period of two weeks and vide order he was posted as Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore - Petitioner has undergone training at Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy and during such period, he availed Earned Leave and therefore, the due date of declaration of probation - Writ petitioner is not suitable for full membership of Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services and therefore, directed the Registry to issue a Show Cause Notice for discharge of probation, Registrar General of the High Court has issued the Show Cause Notice as to why he should not be discharged as a Probationer - In interregnum, pet was placed under compulsory wait and was directed to hand over the charge of his post to the Judicial Magistrate No.5, Coimbatore
Finding of the court: High Court intended or has actually punished him for any defined misconduct, it stands crystallized that the object of High Court on administrative side was to verify the suitability and not enquire into the allegations against the first respondent, we do not find that the foundation was allegations but it was based upon a holistic assessment of the respondent's service record. Even taking an effects based approach, we do not feel that the order of non-confirmation or preceding circumstances would prejudice respondent, meriting a higher procedural requirement.'' In considered opinion of the Court, above cited decision reported would squarely apply to facts and circumstances of the present case - Order of Discharge of the petitioner as a probationer, in considered opinion of the Court, is not stigmatic - This Court, on a careful scrutiny and appraisal of the entire materials placed before it and on a thorough and careful consideration of the rival submissions is of the considered view that there is no infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record in impugned order passed by 1st respondent and that apart, the impugned Government Order is based upon recommendation made by the High Court on its administrative side and the judicial review of the said decision, also lies in a very narrow campus
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :-
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the proceedings on the file of the 1st respondent in G.O.[4D] No.47 dated 17.08.2015 and quash the same as a illegal, incompetent, without jurisdiction and to consequently direct the respondents to declare the completion of probation of the petitioner on completion of his two years of service on 11.10.2014.)
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.
1) The petitioner who was employed as the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore, came to be discharged vide impugned G.O.[4D] No.47 of the 1st respondent dated 17.08.2015 and aggrieved by the same, has filed this writ petition.
2) The facts leading to filing of this writ petition, briefly narrated are as follows:
(a) The writ petitioner was temporarily appointed as Civil Judge [Junior Division] in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services on 10.09.2021 and after administered with Oath of Affirmation, joined judicial services on 11.10.2012. The petitioner was directed to undergo a training for a period of two weeks from 15.10.2012 and 26.10.2012 and vide order dated 29.10.2012, he was posted as Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore.
(b) The petitioner has undergone training at Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy from 29.10.2012 to 11.01.2013 and during such period, he availed Earned Leave and therefore, the due date of declaration of probation was on 19.10.2014.
(c) The Administrative Committee of this Court in the Meeting held on 24.02.2015, resolved that the writ petitioner is not suitable for full membership of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services and therefore, directed the Registry to issue a Show Cause Notice for discharge of probation. Accordingly, the Registrar General of the High Court has issued the Show Cause Notice dated 09.03.2015 as to why he should not be discharged as a Probationer. In the interregnum, the pet was placed under compulsory wait and was directed to hand over the charge of his post to the Judicial Magistrate No.5, Coimbatore.
(d) The writ petitioner, in reply to the Show Cause Notice, submitted his explanation on 17.03.2015 and the same was placed before the Administrative Committee and the Committee in the Meeting held on 22.04.2015, apart from the explanation submitted by the petitioner, has also taken into consideration the Annual Confidential Report as well as the Vigilance Report, and has recommended to discharge the petitioner from service. The said matter was placed as a subject before the Full Court Meeting held on 28.04.2015. The Full Court has approved the Resolution / decision of the Administrative Committee and the Registrar General has also addressed a Communication dated 15.05.2015 to the 1st respondent, who upon consideration of the entire materials placed, has issued the impugned Government Order, discharging the petitioner from service as per Rule 27[c] of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services with immediate effect and accordingly, the petitioner was discharged from service and the petitioner, challenging the legality of the said Government Order, has filed the present writ petition.
3) Mr.S.Prabakaran, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr.R.Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the following submissions:
*The petitioner has duly complied with the norms prescribed for the said post and almost on all occasions, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore has rated the work done by him as good/very good.
*In the Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner, there are no specific allegations doubting the honesty, integrity and probity of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to meet out the allegations and in his response dated 17.03.2015 submitted to the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner has also made a specific submission that he has not come to any adverse notice so far in the form of any Memo / Charge Memo and if there are any allegations/avermen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
