2010 (9) TMI 1203 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the termination order issued by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir.
2. Whether the termination order was stigmatic or punitive.
3. Whether the petitioner was deemed confirmed after the initial probation period.
4. Impact of granting increments on the assessment of the petitioner's service.

Summary:

1. Legality of the termination order issued by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir:
The petitioner challenged the termination order dated 03.07.2003 issued by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir, arguing it was illegal and without jurisdiction as it was not issued by the Governor. The Supreme Court held that the order was valid as it was issued by the competent authority, the Government of Jammu & Kashmir, based on the recommendation of the High Court, and should be treated as such, even though it was not specifically issued in the name of the Governor.

2. Whether the termination order was stigmatic or punitive:
The petitioner argued that the termination order was stigmatic and punitive as it was based on alleged misconduct and no opportunity of hearing was given. The Supreme Court found that the order was not stigmatic or punitive. It was based on the assessment of the petitioner's unsatisfactory service during the probation period. The Court cited precedents, including *Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI Of Medical Sciences* and *State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh*, to support that mentioning unsatisfactory service in the termination order does not make it stigmatic.

3. Whether the petitioner was deemed confirmed after the initial probation period:
The petitioner claimed that he should be deemed confirmed as there was no order of extension of his probation period after the initial two years. The Supreme Court referred to Rule 15 of the Jammu & Kashmir Higher Judicial Service Rules and the case of *Satya Narayan Athya v. High Court of M.P.*, concluding that the petitioner continued on probation as no confirmation order was issued. The Court held that the High Court was justified in discharging the petitioner during the probation period based on unsatisfactory service.

4. Impact of granting increments on the assessment of the petitioner's service:
The petitioner argued that the granting of increments indicated satisfactory service. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the mere granting of yearly increments does not imply satisfactory service. The High Court had the authority to scrutinize the petitioner's records and decide on confirmation, extension of probation, or termination based on overall performance and conduct.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Writ Petition, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. The termination order was upheld as valid, non-stigmatic, and within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity and conduct among judicial officers.