Holding

A discharge of a probationer under Rule 6, which merely states unsuitability, is not punitive nor stigmatic and therefore does not require compliance with the principles of natural justice or any formal enquiry under the 1957 Rules.

Summary

Two probationary Munsifs, H.F. Sangati and Kittur Muthappa Hanumanthappa, were discharged from service under Rule 6(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 on the ground of unsuitability. They challenged the discharge, arguing that the order was punitive, cast a stigma and violated the principles of natural justice because they were not given a hearing. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme and held that Rule 6 merely requires the authority to state the grounds for discharge and does not mandate any formal enquiry or hearing under the 1957 Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. The Court found that the order merely recorded unsuitability, was not punitive, and therefore did not attract the requirements of natural justice. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a discharge order of a probationer under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 is an order simplicitor that must comply with the principles of natural justice.
Whether such an order, by stating that the probationer is unsuitable, casts a stigma or is punitive, thereby requiring formal proceedings under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.

Subjects

probationservice dischargenatural justiceKarnataka Civil ServicesMunsifadministrative lawstigmaservice termination

Judgment

H.F. SANGATI A
v.
R.G. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 23, 2001

[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., R.C. LAHOTI AND B
BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.]

Service I.aw :

Kamataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977: Rule 6.
c
Civil Serviee-Probationer-Discharge of-Principles of Natural Jus-
tice-Applicability of---Services of probationer terminated on the ground that
he was unsuitable to hold the ;;ost-No opportunity of hearing given-Validity
of-Held: Order of discharge is in accordance with R.6 which only requires
indication of grounds of discharge-No formal proceedings under 1957 Rules
required-Mor-eover, order does not cast any stigma on the probationer- D
Hence, no requirement to comply with principles of naturaljustice-Kamataka
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.

The appellants were appointed as Munsifs on probation and they
were discharged from service under Rule 6(1) of the Karnataka Civil
E

- Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 as they were unsuitable to hold the post of
Munsifs. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appel·
!ants. Hence this appeal.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the order of dis-
charge was not an order simplicitor; that the order cast a stigma on the F
appellants inasmuch as it recorded that the appellants were unsuitable to
hold the post of Munsif; that the appellants had not been afforded an
opportunity of hearing before passing the order and, therefore, the order
was vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court G
HELD : 1. 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. Rule 6 of tbe
Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 contemplates a proba-
tioner being discharged from service on one or more of the following H
83
;

84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 2 S.C.R.
A 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. Rule 6(2) of the Rules 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 poceedings under the Karnataka
B
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 being
held. The impugned order of discharge has been passed in strict compli·
ance 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
c formal proceedings of enquiry before making the order. (88-D-F]

Purushottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, (1958] SCR 828 and
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1974) SC 2192, followed

Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for
D Basic Science, Calcutta (1999] 3 SCC 60, relied on.

VP. Ahuja v. State of Punjab, [2000] 3 SCC 239, held inapplicable.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1463 of2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13. 8.99 of the Kamataka High Court -¥
E
in W.A. No. 3416 of 1997.

WITH
-
Civil Appeal No. 1464 of 2001
F
H.F. Sangati-in-person for the Appellant.

S.C. Paul, Ms. Kanwaljeet Kochhar, Rekha Pandey for the Appellant in
C.A. No. 1464/2001.

N. Ganpathy, Saujay R. Hegde and Satya Mitra for the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, J. Leave granted in both the S.L.Ps. -....
H.F. Sangati was appointed as Munsif on probation in the Karnataka
H Judicial Services vide an order dated 25.6.1991 and was posted as Munsif &
H.F. SANGATI v. R.G. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 85
JFMC w.e.f. 16.9.1991. The Administrative Committee of the High Court of A
Karnataka in its meeting dated 13.11.1995 considered the question of satisfac-
tory completion of the period of probation of the Munsifs appointed during the
year 1991. On a review of the confidential records and the remarks based on
assessment of their work, the Committee recorded its opinion that the perfonn-
ance of the petitioner as a judicial officer was too poor to be considered
B
satisfactory for his confinnation on the post. Accordingly the Committee rec-
ommended to the Full Court that the petitioner be discharged from service. The
recommendation so made was considered and accepted by the Full Court in its
meeting held on 26.3. 1996.

Kittur Muthappa Hanumanthappa was appointed as Munsif on probation c
vide notification dated 7.7.1992 and was posted as Additional Munsif & JFMC
w.e.f. 1.9.1992. The initial period of probation of two years was extended by
one year w.e.f. 25. 7 .1994. The Administrative Committee of the High Court in
its meeting held on 6.2. 1996 considered the question of satisfactory completion
of the period of probation of the Munsifs appointed during the year 1992. On
a review of the confidential records and the remarks based on assessment of D
their work as sent by the principal District Judges, the Committee fonned an
opinion that the perfonnance of the appellant as a judicial officer was too poor
to be considered as satisfactory for his confirmation to the post. The recom-
mendation so made was considered and accepted by the Full Court of the High
Court on 26.3. 1996. E
.... The Registrar General of the High Court made a reference to the State
Government whereon the following notification dated 13th May, 1996 was
issued:-

"NOTIFICATION F
In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 6(1) of the K.S.C.
(Probation) Rules, 1977, I 'Khursheed Alam Khan, Governor of
Kamatakahereby order that the following Munsif worlcing at the posts
mentioned against their names as hereunder be discharged from serv-
ice with innnediate effect, as they are unsuitable to hold the post of G
Munsiffs:

Srihuths:

(!) A. Hanumanthappa,
J.M.P.C.II Court, Shimoga H
,-

86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.

A (2) Sangoti Hanumanthappa Fakirappa, !Ind Additional
Munsiff, Belgaum
Bhannanna Neyakas Siddappa Majunathaswamy
Munsiff and J.M.F.C. Harepanshalli

(Khurshed Alam Khan)
B
Governor of Karnataka
By order and in the name of the -~
Governor of Karnataka

Sd/-
c (M.R. Venkataramaiah)
Under Secretary to Government,
Law Department (Administration-I)"

The two appellants filed two separate writ petitions impugning their
discharge from service. A learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka
D dismissed both the writ petitions by two separate judgments assigning similar
reasons. Writ appeals preferred by both the appellants have been dismissed.
The appellants have filed these appeals by special leave to this Court.

It was not disputed before the High Court, either before the learned
E single Judge or before the Division Bench hearing the writ appeals and has
also not been disputed before this Court that the two appellants have been
discharged from service during the period of probation. It is also an admitted
fact that no order was passed declaring the period of probation having been
successfully completed and confirming any of the two appellants in service.

F It is also not disputed that the relevant rules governing the period of
probation of the appellants are Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules,
1977. The controversy centres around Rule 6, which reads as under:-

"Rule 6 : DISCHARGE OF A PROBATIONER DURING THE
PERIOD OF PROBATION :
G
(I) Notwithstanding anything in rule 5 the appointing authority may
at any time during the period of probation, discharge from service a
probationer on grounds arising out of the conditions, if any, imposed
by the rules or in the order of appointment or on account of his
H unsuitability for the service or post; but the order of discharge except
!-1.F. SANGATI v. R.G. l-llGH COURT OF KARNATAKA [R.C. LA!-IOTI, J.] 87
when passed by the Government shall not be given effect to, till it A
.l has been submitted to and confirmed by the next higher authority.

(2) An order discharging a probationer under this rule shall indicate the
grounds for the discharge but no formal proceeding under the Kamataka
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, shall
be necessary." B

It is submitted by tl1e learned counsel appearing for K.M. Hanumanthappa,
and H.F. Sangati who appeared in-person, that the order of discharge is not
an order of discharge simplicitor; it casts stigma on the appellants in as much
as it records - " ...... they are unsuitable to hold the post of Mumifs" and.
therefore, tl1ey should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before
c
passing tl1e impugned orders which having not been done, tl1e impugned order
is vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. Reliance
was placed on a decision of this Court in V.P. Ahuja v. State ofPunjab & Ors.,
[20001 3 sec 239.
D
It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court including the
Constitution Bench decision in Purushottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India,
(1958] SCR 828, and 7-Judges Bench decision in Shamsher Singh v. State of
Punjab, AIR (1974) SC 2192, that services of an appointee to a permanent
.... post on probation can be terminated or dispensed with during or at the end
of the period of probation because the appointee does not acquire any right E
to hold or continue to hold such a post during the period of probation. In
Shamsher Sing h's case it was observed that the period of probation is intended
to assess the work of the probationer whether it is satisfactory and whether
the appointee is suitable for the post; the competent authority may cume to
conclusion that the probationer is unsuitable for the job and hence must be F
discharged on accour1t of inadequacy for tl1e job or for any temperamental or
other similar grounds not involving moral turpitude. No punishment is in-
volved in such a situation. Recently, in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra
Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & Ors., [1999] 3 SCC
60, having reviewed the entire available case law on the issue this Court has
G
held that termination of a probationer's services, if motivated by certain
, allegations tentamounting to misconduct but not forming foundation of a
-r simple order of termination carurot be termed punitive and hence would be
valid. In Satya Narayan Athya v. High Coun of M.P. & Anr., AIR ( 1996) SC
750 the petitioner appointed on probation as a Civil Judge and not confirmed
was discharged from service in view of the non- satisfactory nature of the H
/

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20Ql] 2 S.C.R.
A service. This Court held that the High Court was justified in discharging the
petitioner from service during the period of probation and it was not necessary
that there should have been a charge and an enquhy on his conduct, since the
petitioner was only on probation and it was open to the High Court to consider
whether he was suitable for confirmation or should be discharged from
service.
B
In the two cases at hand we find the Administrative Committee of the
).
High Court having 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
c accepted by the Full Court of the High Court. Pursuant thereto, the State
Government issued the hnpugned order of discharge from service.

In our opinion the hnpugned order does not cast any stigma on the
appellants. All that has been said in the impugned order is that the appellants
were nnsuitable to hold the post of Mnnsifs. It is pertinent to note that Rule
D 6 contemplates a probationer being discharged from service on one or more
of the following grounds : (i) in terms of a condition hnposed by the rules,
(ii) in terms of the order of appointment, or (iii) on acconnt of nnsuitability
of the appointee for the service or post. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6 requires an order
discharging the probationer to indicate the gronnds for the discharge. It also
provides that such indicating of the gronnds for the discharge in the order
E
would not require any formal proceedings under the Karnataka Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 being held. The hnpugned
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, thns, no requirement to comply with the principles of natural justice
F much Jess to be preceded by any formal procee.dings of enquiry before malting
the order.

Reliance by the appellants on the decisions of this Court in V.P. Ahuja
is misconceived. In V.P. Ahuja's case the appellant's appointment was ter-
minated during the period of probation. One of the recitals of the order was
G that the appellant "failed in the performance of his duties, administratively
and technically". The order was founded on a stigmatic allegation and was,
therefore, held pnnitive. The appellant was an employee of a Cooperative
Federation in Punjab. The judgment does not refer to the relevant service rules
and none have been brought to our notice so as to claim parity of the
H appellant's case with that of V.P. Ahuja's case. In these appeals, as we have
H.F. SANGATI v. R.G. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 89

already stated, the statutory nile requires the order of discharge to indicate A
the grounds for the discharge. If the ground for discharge would not have been
mentioned in the impugned order, it would have invited ;he criticism of being
arbitrary or not satisfying the requirement of the rule. It may be stated that
in the High Court, the appellants have' not laid any challenge to the vires of
Rule 6. H.F. Sangati, the appellant appearing in-person, made a faint attempt
B
at challenging the vires of sub-rule 2 of Rule 6 above-said but the same was
not permitted in the facts and circumstances of the case as such a plea was
not raised before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High
Court.

For the foregoing reasons, we find no fault with the view taken by the C
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of U1e High Comt. The appeals
are devoid of any merit and are dismissed though without any order as to U1c
costs.

v.s.s. Appeals dismissed.

-