The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 15 of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003, regarding the grounds for discharge of a probationer and the distinction between stigmatic and non-stigmatic discharge orders.

JUDGMENT

1. The original writ petitioner late Sri Somnath Gangopadhyay was selected to the Tripura Judicial Service Grade III (TJS) in December 2003. He was appointed on probation for a period of two years on 24.5.2004. After completion of his training, he was initially posted at Udaipur as Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) cum Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class. On 20th August, 2007 the State of Tripura issued a notification discharging the services of the petitioner treating him as a probationer with immediate effect. That order was challenged by the petitioner by means of this writ petition.

2. Unfortunately, the original writ petitioner committed suicide on 25.12.2012. Thereafter his widow Ms. Shampa Nath applied for being brought on record and vide order dated 20th June, 2013 she was permitted to represent the estate of the original petitioner. Ms. Shampa Nath appeared in person and has argued the matter and also submitted her detailed written submissions running into 97 pages. However, if we go through the detailed submissions, there are only few grounds of challenge. The first ground is that the petitioner had completed his period of probation and was deemed to be a confirmed employee and therefore, his services could not have been discharged by treating him to be a probationer. The second ground is that even if he was discharged during probation, the grounds for discharge should have been indicated in the order of discharge in terms of sub-rule (6) of Rule 15 of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003. The third ground is that the order of discharge is illegal because it is based on unfounded and unverified allegations which were not inquired into and all of which allegations are in the nature of misconduct and that in view of such allegations, an inquiry was necessary. Lastly it is contended that the entire action against the petitioner was malafide and allegations of malafide had been levelled against respondent no. 4, the then Registrar of the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court, respondent no. 5 who was the then District and Sessions Judge, Agartala, respondent no. 6, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agartala and allegations of malafide had also been levelled against various other officers of the Tripura Judicial Service and ministerial staff of the Court as well as the Tripura Judicial Officers Association.

3. Before dealing with the factual aspects of the matter it would be relevant to quote Rule 15 of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003 which deals with probation, officiation, confirmation and increment and reads as follows:

"15. Probation, Officiation, Confirmation and Increment:-

(1) All appointments to the service by direct recruitment shall be on probation for a period of two years.

(2) All appointments by promotion shall be on officiating basis of a period of two years.

(3) The period of probation or officiation, as the case may be, of an officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended by such period not exceeding the period of probation of officiation, specified in sub-rules (1) or (2).

(4) At the end of the period of probation or officiation or the extended period of probation or officiation, as the case may be the High Court shall consider the suitability of the person to hold the post/grade to which the is appointed or promoted, and-

(i) if he is found suitable to hold the post/grade and has passed the special examinations or tests, if any, required to be passed during the period of probation or officiation, as the case may be, the High Court shall, as soon as possible, issue an order declaring him to have satisfactorily completed the period of probation or officiation, as the case may be; and such an order shall have effect from the date of expiry of the period of probation or officiation, including the extended period, if any, as the case may be.

(ii) if the officer is not found suitable to hold the post/grade to which he is appointed or promoted, as the case may be, the Gover