2011 (3) TMI 1748 - SC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues involved: Application for post of Munsif, discharge of accused u/s 239 CrPC, complaint against discharge, order of discharge by Full Court, challenge to order of removal, violation of natural justice, probationary period, suitability for job, termination of service.

Application for post of Munsif: The Appellant applied for the post of Munsif, underwent tests and interview, and was declared successful in 2001. Subsequently, he was appointed as a Probationer Munsif and later conferred with the power of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. While discharging his duties, he passed an order discharging accused persons u/s 239 CrPC.

Complaint and Discharge: A complaint was received alleging that the Appellant discharged accused persons despite rejection of a revision application. The matter was referred to the Standing Committee and Full Court, which decided that the continuation of the Appellant's service was no longer required, leading to his discharge from service by the Government of Jharkhand.

Challenge to Order of Removal: The Appellant challenged the order of removal through a Writ Petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. The Appellant contended that the order of removal without holding an enquiry violated principles of natural justice and cast a stigma on his career.

Probationary Period and Termination: The Respondents argued that the Appellant was on probation when the order of removal was issued in public interest, and it was a justified decision. The Court noted that during probation, the employer assesses the suitability of the employee for continuation in service. In this case, the decision to release the Appellant was based on his overall performance, conduct, and suitability for the job, and it was a termination simpliciter, not removal for indiscipline or misconduct.

Judicial Precedent and Conclusion: Referring to a previous case, the Court emphasized the importance of judicial officers' probity and performance. The Court concluded that the order of termination was a result of the Appellant's unsatisfactory service based on his overall performance and conduct, not stigmatic or punitive. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.