9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confirmation of probationary civil judge after completion of two years probation. 2. Discharge of civil judge from service for non-satisfactory performance during probation period. 3. Justification of discharge without formal charge and inquiry during probation. Confirmation of Probationary Civil Judge: The petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge on probation and completed the initial six months training period before being put on probation for two years. The Rules state that probationers may be confirmed at the end of the probation period subject to their fitness and passing prescribed examinations. In this case, the petitioner was not confirmed after two years, and there was no extension order, leading to the assumption that he continued on probation. The absence of a confirmation order meant the petitioner could not be deemed confirmed automatically. The High Court's decision not to confirm him was based on his unsatisfactory performance, despite later records showing improvement. The court held that the petitioner's discharge was not arbitrary, as his performance during the relevant period was deemed unsatisfactory, justifying the non-confirmation. Discharge for Non-Satisfactory Performance: The Full Court decided that the petitioner's performance was not satisfactory, leading to his discharge from service under Rule 52(a) of the M.P. Government Service Rules. The High Court found that the petitioner's subsequent good performance did not negate the earlier unsatisfactory period. The Division Bench upheld the decision, emphasizing that the High Court's assessment of the petitioner's performance was justified. Even the report from the District Judge indicated a need for improvement in case disposal, supporting the High Court's decision to discharge the petitioner. The discharge was considered valid during the probation period without the need for a formal charge or inquiry. Justification of Discharge During Probation: The High Court's decision to discharge the petitioner during his probation period was deemed justified, as it was within the court's discretion to assess his suitability for confirmation. The absence of a formal charge and inquiry was justified since the petitioner was still on probation, allowing the High Court to evaluate his performance and decide on confirmation or discharge. The Supreme Court found no grounds for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution, dismissing the Special Leave Petition against the Division Bench's order.
|
