DAYARAM DAYAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, after going through the process of selection by the Public Service Commission, was appointed as Civil Judge, Class 2 in the Madhya Pradesh Subordinate Judicial Service by an order dated 22-10-1985. The order stated that he would have to undergo training for six months and be on probation for 2 years. The appellant completed training on 29-5-1986 and was put on probation for 2 years. He completed probation by 22-5-1988. On 2-3-1990, he was placed under suspension pending some charges. The charges were served on 3-3-1990, an inquiry report was given by the District Judge on 12-4-1991 and the High Court, in its Full Court Meeting dt. 27/28-4-1991 resolved to impose a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. On 7-8-1991, the suspension was revoked and he resumed duties as Civil Judge Class II w.e.f. 7-8-1991. There were certain adverse remarks in the ACRs during 1987-88, 88-89, 89-90, 91-92 and 92-93. The inspection Judge of the High Court who inspected appellants Court on 26-2-1992 also referred to certain irregularities. In the Full Court Meeting dated 3-5-1992, the appellant was not found fit for confirmation and his case for promotion as Civil Judge, Class I was postponed. In a subsequent Full Court Meeting dt. 30-4-1993, 1st, 2nd May, 1993, it was decided that appellant was not fit for confirmation and looking at his overall performance, his services should be terminated after giving him one months salary in lieu of notice. The resolution was forwarded to the Madhya Pradesh State Government on 19-7-1993. The State Government by orders dated 8-11-1993, terminated the appellants services by paying one months salary in lieu of notice. The order was served on 17-12-1993. The writ petition filed by the appellant being MP 627/94 was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 25-4-1994.

(2.) The learned single Judge held that during the period of probation, the appellant was found guilty and punished by orders dated 23-8-1991 by stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect; that the appellants Court was inspected by the inspection Judge and the appellants work was not found satisfactory and adverse remarks were made and duly communicated to the appellant; that the overall performance was considered by the Full Court Meeting and it was decided to "discharge" him from service by giving him one months salary in lieu of notice and that this was not illegal. In LPA 27/94, the Division Bench in its judgment dated 7-7-1994 dismissed the appeal. It was contended in the appeal that the appellant was appointed in 1985 prescribing a period of 2 years probation, that according to the M.P. Judicial Services (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955, probation cannot be extended beyond 2 years in addition to the initial period of 2 years (i.e. in all four years) and that therefore the appellant must be deemed to have been confirmed and hence a simple order of termination by issuing one months notice or one month salary in lieu of notice, was not sufficient. This contention was rejected stating that "the 1955 Rules are not applicable" and that therefore, the "so-called limitation on the extension of probation period cannot be accepted." The charges framed against the appellant were acts of misconduct from April, 1989, which were well within the period of four years of service of the appellant. It was held that, in the circumstances, there could be no presumption that by not extending the probation or by not confirming him within the period of four years, it was intended to confirm him in service. The contention as to lack of opportunity was rejected. It is against this judgment that the appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner.

(3.) In this appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the relevant rule in Madhya Pradesh applicable to Judicial Officers Class II, namely, Rule 24 of the M.P. Judicial Services (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules) states that an officer shall initially be on probation for 2 years and the same can be extended for a period not exceeding another two years. The probationers may, at the end of the period of their probation, be confirm subject to their fitness for confirmation and if they have passed all such departmental examinations as may be prescribed. Learned counsel submits that whenever such a maximum period of probation is fixed by the Rules, then if the officer is continued beyond the maximum period prescribed, the officer must be deemed to have been confirmed in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh (1968) 3 SCR 1 .