Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 179 (KAR)

H. Hanumantha Raj v. State of Karnataka

2018-02-08

H.G.RAMESH, P.S.DINESH KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.No.32452/2015, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status in the writ petition. 3. Heard Shri R. Nataraj, learned Counsel for appellant and Shri V .Sreenidhi, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. 4. Petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Karnataka Judicial Service on 30.09.2008. He was initially placed on probation till 03.07.2011 and his probationary period was extended by a Notification dated 26.04.2014. He has been discharged from service with immediate effect on 15.07.2015. Petitioner, in the instant writ petition has challenged his discharge from service, as also the vires of Rule 5 (2) of Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977. 5. The Hon'ble Single Judge on examination of original records, has recorded a finding that based on the recommendation made by the Administrative Committee No.1, the Full Court recommended to the Government to discharge petitioner from service on the ground that he was 'unsuitable to hold the post of Civil Judge'. The validity of Rule 5(2) is also upheld by the Hon'ble Single Judge. Feeling aggrieved by Hon'ble Single Judge's order, petitioner is before us. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that though the order of discharge does not indicate any reason, yet, it meets petitioner with a 'stigma'. Petitioner was discharging his duties diligently. Allegations, if any, against the petitioner were not made known to him. Therefore, the action of the High Court, recommending to the Government to discharge the petitioner is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice and by exercise of the power in an arbitrary manner. 7. Shri V. Sreenidhi, learned AGA for the respondents, supporting the order of discharge and placing reliance on an authority in the case of H.F. Sangati v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and Others reported in (2001) 3 SCC 117 , contended that the order of discharge is conspicuous in nature and does not impute anything against the petitioner. He submitted that the issue with regard to discharge of a probationary officer is well-settled and the matter on hand is fully covered by the authority relied upon by him. 8. He submitted that the issue with regard to discharge of a probationary officer is well-settled and the matter on hand is fully covered by the authority relied upon by him. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9. The order dated 15.07.2015, passed by the Government of Karnataka is an 'order simpliciter'. It does not impute any allegation against the petitioner. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.F. Sangati, has held as follows:- "9. In the two cases at hand we find that the Administrative Committee of the High Court 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. 10. 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 inquiry before making the order." (Emphasis Supplied) 11. In the light of undisputed facts and the law on the point, we are at one with the view taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the light of undisputed facts and the law on the point, we are at one with the view taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. We make no order as to costs.