2010 (7) TMI 1152 - SC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant was entitled to deemed confirmation as a District Judge after completing the probation period.
2. Whether the discharge of the appellant from service was arbitrary and contrary to the rules.
3. The conduct of the appellant and the High Court's handling of the case, including the failure to produce records and the appellant's inclusion in the police "rowdy list".

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deemed Confirmation:
The appellant argued that he should be deemed confirmed as a District Judge after completing the probation period of two years, as per the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules 1983 and the Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1977. The relevant rules state that the probation period cannot be less than two years and can be extended, but there must be a specific order declaring the probationer's satisfactory completion of the probation period. The Supreme Court held that there was no provision for automatic or deemed confirmation under these rules. Rule 5(2) specifically states that a probationer shall not be deemed to have satisfactorily completed the probation unless a specific order to that effect is passed. The Court found that the appellant had not received such an order and thus could not claim deemed confirmation.

2. Discharge from Service:
The appellant's discharge from service was challenged as arbitrary and contrary to the rules. The High Court had found that the appellant was unsuitable for the post, and this decision was based on the recommendations of a Sub-Committee of Hon'ble Judges. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that Rule 6(1) of the 1977 Rules allows for the discharge of a probationer on grounds of unsuitability. The Court emphasized that the discharge was not stigmatic and was a discharge simpliciter. The appellant's service record did not reflect outstanding performance, and there were complaints against him. The Court concluded that the discharge was in accordance with the rules and did not require interference.

3. Conduct of the Appellant and the High Court:
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the contradictory statements made by the appellant in various affidavits and the High Court's failure to produce records despite specific orders. The appellant's name had been included in the police "rowdy list" prior to his appointment, which was a matter of serious concern. The Court noted that the High Court had not properly contested the case or pursued it in its correct perspective. The Court also criticized the High Court for not maintaining the expected standards of proper administration, including the timely recording of confidential reports of judicial officers. The Court directed the High Court to take corrective steps and ensure that police verification reports are received before appointing judicial officers.

Separate Judgments:
The judgment was delivered by Swatanter Kumar, J., with B.S. Chauhan concurring. There were no separate judgments delivered by the judges.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to deemed confirmation and that his discharge from service was in accordance with the rules. The Court also highlighted the need for timely action by the authorities and issued directions to ensure proper administration and verification processes in judicial appointments. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.