http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1463  of  2001 Appeal (civil)  1464     of  2001

PETITIONER: H.F. SANGATI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: R.G. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/02/2001

BENCH: CJI, R.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar

JUDGMENT:

R.C. Lahoti, J.

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J Leave granted in both the S.L.Ps.

   H.F.   Sangati  was appointed as Munsif on probation  in the   Karnataka  Judicial  Services   vide  an  order  dated 25.6.1991 and was posted as Munsif & JFMC w.e.f.  16.9.1991. The  Administrative Committee of the High Court of Karnataka in  its meeting dated 13.11.1995 considered the question  of satisfactory  completion  of the period of probation of  the Munsifs  appointed during the year 1991.  On a review of the confidential  records and the remarks based on assessment of their  work,  the  Committee recorded its opinion  that  the performance  of the petitioner as a judicial officer was too poor  to be considered satisfactory for his confirmation  on the post.  Accordingly the Committee recommended to the Full Court  that the petitioner be discharged from service.   The recommendation  so  made was considered and accepted by  the Full Court in its meeting held on 26.3.1996.

   Kittur Muthappa Hanumanthappa was appointed as Munsif on probation vide notification dated 7.7.1992 and was posted as Additional  Munsif  &  JFMC w.e.f.  1.9.1992.   The  initial period  of  probation of two years was extended by one  year w.e.f.  25.7.1994.  The Administrative Committee of the High Court  in  its  meeting  held  on  6.2.1996  considered  the question  of  satisfactory  completion  of  the  period   of probation of the Munsifs appointed during the year 1992.  On a  review of the confidential records and the remarks  based on  assessment  of  their  work as  sent  by  the  principal District  Judges,  the Committee formed an opinion that  the performance  of the appellant as a judicial officer was  too poor  to be considered as satisfactory for his  confirmation to  the post.  The recommendation so made was considered and accepted by the Full Court of the High Court on 26.3.1996.

   The Registrar General of the High Court made a reference to  the State Government whereon the following  notification@@         JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

dated 13th May, 1996 was issued:-@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

NOTIFICATION

   In  exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 6(1) of the K.S.C.   (Probation)  Rules,  1977, I Khursheed  Alam  Khan, Governor  of  Karnataka  hereby  order  that  the  following Munsiffs  working at the posts mentioned against their names as  hereunder  be  discharged from  service  with  immediate effect, as they are unsuitable to hold the post of Munsiffs:

   Srihuths:

   1)  A.  Hanumanthappa, J.M.P.C.II Court, Shimoga

   2)  Sangoti  Hanumanthappa  Fakirappa,         IInd Additional Munsiff, Belgaum

   Bharmanna  Neyakas  Siddappa Majunathaswamy Munsiff  and J.M.F.C.  Harepanshalli

(Khurshed Alam Khan) Governor of Karnataka By order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka

                                       Sd/- (M.R. Venkataramaiah) Under Secretary to Government, Law Department (Administration-I)

   The  two  appellants filed two separate  writ  petitions impugning  their  discharge from service.  A learned  single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka dismissed both the writ petitions  by  two  separate   judgments  assigning  similar reasons.  Writ appeals preferred by both the appellants have been  dismissed.  The appellants have filed these appeals by special leave to this Court.

   It was not disputed before the High Court, either before the  learned  single  Judge  or before  the  Division  Bench hearing  the  writ  appeals and has also not  been  disputed before  this  Court  that  the   two  appellants  have  been discharged  from service during the period of probation.  It is  also an admitted fact that no order was passed declaring the  period of probation having been successfully  completed and confirming any of the two appellants in service.

   It  is  also  not  disputed   that  the  relevant  rules governing  the  period  of probation of the  appellants  are Karnataka  Civil  Services  (Probation)  Rules,  1977.   The controversy centres around Rule 6, which reads as under:-

   Rule  6 :  DISCHARGE OF A PROBATIONER DURING THE  PERIOD                OF PROBATION :

   1)  Notwithstanding  anything in rule 5  the  appointing authority  may  at any time during the period of  probation, discharge  from service a probationer on grounds arising out of  the  conditions, if any, imposed by the rules or in  the order  of appointment or on account of his unsuitability for the service or post;  but the order of discharge except when passed  by the Government shall not be given effect to, till

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

it  has  been submitted to and confirmed by the next  higher authority.

   2)  An  order discharging a probationer under this  rule shall  indicate the grounds for the discharge but no  formal proceeding    under    the     Karnataka   Civil    Services (Classification  Control  and Appeal) Rules, 1957, shall  be necessary.

   It  is  submitted by the learned counsel  appearing  for K.M.    Hanumanthappa,  and  H.F.    Sangati  who   appeared in-person,  that  the order of discharge is not an order  of discharge simplicitor;  it casts stigma on the appellants in as  much as it records -  they are unsuitable to hold the post  of  Munsifs  and, therefore, they  should  have  been afforded  an  opportunity  of  hearing  before  passing  the impugned  orders  which having not been done,  the  impugned order  is vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural  justice.  Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court  in V.P.  Ahuja Vs.  State of Punjab & Ors., (2000)  3 SCC  239.   It is well settled by a series of  decisions  of this  Court  including  the Constitution Bench  decision  in Purushottam  Lal Dhingra Vs.  Union of India, 1958 SCR  828, and  7-Judges Bench decision in Shamsher Singh Vs.  State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192, that services of an appointee to a permanent  post on probation can be terminated or  dispensed with during or at the end of the period of probation because the appointee does not acquire any right to hold or continue to  hold  such  a post during the period of  probation.   In Shamsher  Singhs  case it was observed that the  period  of probation  is intended to assess the work of the probationer whether  it  is  satisfactory and whether the  appointee  is suitable  for the post;  the competent authority may come to conclusion  that  the probationer is unsuitable for the  job and  hence  must be discharged on account of inadequacy  for the  job  or for any temperamental or other similar  grounds not involving moral turpitude.  No punishment is involved in such  a situation.  Recently, in Dipti Prakash Banerjee  Vs. Satyendra  Nath  Bose  National Centre for  Basic  Sciences, Calcutta & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 60, having reviewed the entire available  case  law on the issue this Court has  held  that termination  of  a probationers services, if  motivated  by certain  allegations  tentamounting  to misconduct  but  not forming  foundation of a simple order of termination  cannot be  termed  punitive  and hence would be  valid.   In  Satya Narayan Athya Vs.  High Court of M.P.  & Anr.  - AIR 1996 SC 750  the petitioner appointed on probation as a Civil  Judge and not confirmed was discharged from service in view of the non-  satisfactory  nature of the service.  This Court  held that  the  High  Court  was  justified  in  discharging  the petitioner  from service during the period of probation  and it  was  not necessary that there should have been a  charge and  an enquiry on his conduct since the petitioner was only on  probation and it was open to the High Court to  consider whether  he  was  suitable  for confirmation  or  should  be discharged from service.

   In  the  two  cases at hand we find  the  Administrative Committee  of the High Court having took into  consideration all  the relevant material and thereafter formed an  opinion as  to  the unsuitability of the two appellants to hold  the post  of  Munsifs,  which opinion was  communicated  to  and upheld  and  accepted by the Full Court of the  High  Court. Pursuant  thereto, the State Government issued the  impugned order of discharge from service.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

   In  our  opinion  the impugned order does not  cast  any stigma  on  the appellants.  All that has been said  in  the impugned  order  is that the appellants were  unsuitable  to hold the post of Munsifs.  It is pertinent to note that Rule 6  contemplates a probationer being discharged from  service on one or more of the following grounds :  (i) in terms of a condition  imposed by the rules, (ii) in terms of the  order of  appointment, or (iii) on account of unsuitability of the appointee  for  the service or post.  Sub-rule 2 of  Rule  6 requires  an  order discharging the probationer to  indicate the  grounds for the discharge.  It also provides that  such indicating  of  the grounds for the discharge in  the  order would not require any formal proceedings under the Karnataka Civil  Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)  Rules, 1957  being held.  The impugned order of discharge has  been passed in strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 6. It  does  not  cast any stigma on the appellants nor  is  it punitive.   There  was, thus, no requirement to comply  with the  principles of natural justice much less to be  preceded by  any  formal  proceedings of enquiry  before  making  the order.

   Reliance  by  the  appellants on the decisions  of  this Court in V.P.  Ahuja is misconceived.  In V.P.  Ahujas case@@                JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ the appellants appointment was terminated during the period@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ of probation.  One of the recitals of the order was that the appellant   failed  in  the   performance  of  his  duties, administratively and technically.  The order was founded on a  stigmatic  allegation and was, therefore, held  punitive. The appellant was an employee of a Cooperative Federation in Punjab.  The judgment does not refer to the relevant service rules  and  none  have been brought to our notice so  as  to claim  parity  of  the appellants case with  that  of  V.P. Ahujas  case.  In these appeals, as we have already stated, the  statutory  rule  requires  the order  of  discharge  to indicate  the grounds for the discharge.  If the ground  for discharge  would  not  have been mentioned in  the  impugned order,  it  would  have  invited   the  criticism  of  being arbitrary or not satisfying the requirement of the rule.  It may  be  stated that in the High Court, the appellants  have not  laid  any  challenge  to the vires  of  Rule  6.   H.F. Sangati,  the  appellant appearing in-person, made  a  faint attempt  at  challenging the vires of sub-rule 2 of  Rule  6 above-said  but the same was not permitted in the facts  and circumstances  of  the  case as such a plea was  not  raised before the learned single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court.

   For  the  foregoing reasons, we find no fault  with  the view  taken  by  the learned single Judge and  the  Division Bench  of  the  High Court.  The appeals are devoid  of  any merit  and are dismissed though without any order as to  the costs.

CJI.                                                                                 ( R.C. Lahoti )                                                                                 ( Brijesh Kumar )

February 23, 2001.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5