RAJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

                   [2011] 3 S.C.R. 823

              RAJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA                         A
                             V.
             STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
             (Civil Appeal No. 2419 Of 2011)
                     MARCH 10, 2011
                                                              B
          [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
                 ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

    SERVICE LAW·
                                                              c
      Judicial Officer - Probationer Munsif - Discharged from
seNice - Held: A person is placed on probation so as to
enable the employer to adjudge his suitability for continuation
and confirmation in the service - While taking a decision in
this regard neither any notice is required to be given to the D
Probationer nor is he required to be given any opportunity of
hearing - In the instant case, the order of termination was a
fall out of the unsatisfactory service of the incumbent adjudged
on the basis of his overall performance and the manner in
which he conducted himself - This is a case of termination E
of service simp/iciter and not a case of stigmatic termination 1
- Natural Justice.

     A complaint was made against the appellant, a,
Probationer Munsif, that while functioning as Judicial
Magistrate I Class, he discharged all the accused in a F
case involving offences punishable u/ss 406, 408, 420,
and 120-B IPC despite rejection of revision application by
High Court earlier. The matter was referred to the
Standing Committee of the High Court and was,
ultimately, considered by the Full Court, which resolved G
that continuation of the service of the appellant was no
longer required and that he should be discharged.
Consequently, the State Government issued order stating
that the services of the appellant were no longer required
                            823                            H
    824      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A in public interest and, therefore, he stood discharged with
  effect from 31-7-2003. The writ petition of the appellant
  was dismissed by the High Court.

      In the instant appeal it was contended for the
  appellant that the order challenged, being an order of
8
  removal passed without holding an inquiry, was not only
  in violation of principle of natural justice but it also
  amounted to casting a stigma on the career of the
  appellant and, as such, the order passed by the High
  Court was liable to be set aside.
c
          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1.1. A person is placed on probation so as to
  enable the employer to adjudge his suitability for
0 continuation in the service and also for confirmation in
  service. There are various criteria for adjudging suitability
  of a person to hold the post on permanent basis and by
  way of confirmation. At that stage and during the period
  of probation the action and activities of the probationer
E are generally under scrutiny and on the basis of his
  overall performance a decision is generally taken as to
  whether his services should be continued and that he
  should be confirmed, or he should be released from
  service. [Para 1O] [828-B-D]

F      1.2. In the instant case, the order of termination of
  services of the appellant is a fall out of his unsatisfactory
  service adjudged on the basis of his overall performance
  and the manner in which he conducted himself. In the
  course of adjudging such suitability it was found by the
G respondents that the performance of the appellant was
  not satisfactory and, therefore, he was not suitable for the
  job. The decision to release him from service was taken
  by the respondents considering his overall performance,
  conduct and suitability for the job. While taking a
H
     RAJESH KUMAR SRIY,~9TAVA v. STATE OF                   825
                JHARKHAND
decision in this regard neither any notice is required to           A
be given to the probationer nor is he required to be given
any opportunity of hearing. Strictly speaking, it is not a
case of removal on grounds of indiscipline or
misconduct as sought to be made out by the appellant.
Such decision cannot be said to be stigmatic or punitive.           B
This is a case of termination of service simpliciter and not
a case of stigmatic termination and, therefore, there is no
infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court. [Para 10 and 12) [828-D-G; 829-A-D]

    Rajesh Kohli vs. High Court of J & K & Anr. 2010 (11)           C
SCR 699 = (2010) 12 sec 783: 2010 (10) JT 276 - relied
on.

                    Case Law Reference:
                                                                    D
     2010 (11) SCR699          relied on              Para 11
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2419 of 2011.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 4.4.2008 of the High           E
-Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (S) No. 5213 of 2003.

      S.R. Singh, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj Dayal, Sahdev Singh
for the Appellant.

     Ratan Kumar Chaudhuri, Akshay Shukla, Krishnanand              F
•Pandeya for the Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                    G
      2. The appellant herein submitted his application offering
!himself as a candidate for the post of Munsif to be recruited
lby the respondents for which an advertisement was also issued.
!Pursuant to the aforesaid application filed by the appellant, he
                               .
ivVas called to appear in the various tests held, including the     H
        826       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 3 S.C.R.


  A interview conducted by the High Court. He successfully
    completed his tests and consequently was declared successful
    in the year 2001.

         3. After completing his training period, a notification was
    issued on 21.05.2002, appointing him as a Probationer Munsif.
  8
    The said notification was issued by the Government of
    Jharkhand. He was posted at Dhanbad by a notification issued
    by the High Court. On 04.06.2002, he assumed the charge as
    Probationer Munsif at Dhanbad. On 15.07.2002, he was
  C conferred with the power of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. While
    he was discharging his duties as such, he passed an order on
    06.01.2003, discharging all the accused under Section 239
    Cr.P.C. in G.R. No. 4698 of 1995 under Sections 406, 408,
    420, 120-B IPC.

  D      4. A complaint from one Ram Kumar was received by the
   High Court on 04.03.2003, wherein it was alleged that the
   appellant had discharged the said accused persons, despite-
   rejection of revision application by the High Court earlier. It was
   also alleged that the aforesaid order discharging the accused•
 E was passed for extraneous consideration. The High_Court on.
   receipt of the aforesaid complaint called for a report from the·
   District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. On receipt of the saidl
   communication, the District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, senti
   a letter to the appellant directing him to offer his remarks which•
 F were submitted by the appellant. The said remarks and reportl
   along with confidential report of the appellant were submitted!
   by the District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, before the Highi
   Court. On 28.04.2003, the concerned Zonal Judge referred the
   matter to the Standing Committee for further action. In terms
   of the decision of the Zonal Judge, the then Chief Justice ot
-G
   the High Court also referred the matter to the Standin,
   Committee by way of recording an order on 01.05.2003. The
   matter was considered in the meeting of the Standinb,
   Committee held on 08.07.2003.

  1-f         5. After considering the performance and the suitability o•
    RAJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF                        827
  JHARKHAND [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
the appellant, it was resolved that the matter be referred to the      A·
Full Court for consideration, a.nd a decision as to whether or
not the continuation of the service of the appellant was required.
Consequent thereupon the matter was placed before the Full
Court meeting held on 18.07.2003, wherein it was resolved by
the Full Court that the continuation of the service of the appellant   B
was no longer required and that he should be discharged.
Consequent thereupon the resolution of the Full Court was sent
to the Government. The Government of Jharkhand issued an
order dated 31.07.2003, stating that the services of the
appellant are no longer required in public interest, and               c
therefore, the appellant stands discharged from service with
effect from 31.07.2003.

    6. Challenging the said order passed by the State
Government, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High
Court which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High            D
Court by a detailed order giving reasons for its decision dated
04.04.2008.

     7. The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order
passed by the High Court filed the present appeal in this Court,       E
on which we heard learned counsel appearing for the par1ies,
who had also taken us painstakingly through the records of the
case. Having considered the same, we proceed to dispose of
the present appeal by recording our reasons for our conclusion.

       8. The counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that       F
the order challenged by way of the Writ Petition was an order
of removal and the same having been passed without holding
an enquiry amounts to, not only violation of principles of natural
justice but also amounts to casting a stigma in the career of
the appellant and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court       G
is illegal and liable to be set aside.

     9. The Counsel appearing for the respondents, however,
refuted the aforesaid submissions. He submitted that the
appellant was on probation when a notification removing him            H
    828      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A from the service in public interest was issued and that the order
  passed was just and proper. He denied that the impugned
  order is stigmatic or in any way punitive or that there was any
  violation of the principles of natural justice.

       10. The records placed before us disclose that at the time
8
  when the impugned order was passed, the appellant was
  working as a Probationer Munsif. A person is placed on
  probation so as to enable the employer to adjudge his suitability
  for continuation in the service and also for confirmation in
  service. There are various criteria for adjudging suitability of a
C person to hold the post on permanent basis and by way of
  confirmation. At that stage and during the period of probation
  the action and activities of the appellant are generally under
  scrutiny and on the basis of his overall performance a decision
  is generally taken as to whether his services should be
D continued and that he should be confirmed, or he should be
  released from service. In the present case, in the course of
  adjudging such suitability it was found by the respondents that
  the performance of the appellant was not satisfactory and
  therefore he was not suitable for the job. The aforesaid decision
E to release him from service was taken by the respondents
  considering his overall performance, conduct and suitability for
  the job. While taking a decision in this regard neither any notice
  is required to be given to the appellant nor he is required to
  be given any opportunity of hearing. Strictly speaking, it is not
F a case of removal as sought to be made out by the appellant,
  but was a case of simple discharge from service. It is, therefore,
  only a termination simpliciter and not removal from service on
  the grounds of indiscipline or misconduct. While adjudging his
  performance, conduct and overall suitability, his performance
G record as also the report from the higher authorities were called
  for and they were looked into before any decision was taken
  as to whether the officer concerned should be continued in
  service or not.

          11. In a recent decision of this Court in Rajesh Kohli vs.
H
     RAJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF / '829
   JHARKHAND [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
High Court of J & K & Anr. reported at (2010) 12 SCC 783:          A
2010 (10) JT 276, almost a similar issue cropped up for
consideration, in which this Court has held that the High Court
has a solemn duty to consider and appreciate the service of a
judicial officer before confirming him in service and for this not ,
only judicial performance but also probity as to how one has B
conducted himself is relevant and important. It was also held
in the same decision that upright and honest judicial officers
are needed in the district judiciary, which is the bedrock of our
judicial system.

      12. The order of termination passed in the present case
                                                                   c
is a fall out of his unsatisfactory service adjudged on the basis
of his overall performance and the manner in i,yhich he
conducted himself. Such decision cannot be said to be
stigmatic or punitive. This is a case of teflllination of servi&
simpliciter and not a case of stigmatic terrpi'nation and therefore D
there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court.
     13. We do not find any merit in this appeal, therefore, we
dismiss the same, but leaving the parties to 1bear their own       E
costs.
R.P.                                        Appeal dismissed.