GURUPADA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, assailing the correctness of the order dated 22.05.2009 passed in A. No. 10847/2002 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, 'tribunal') produced at Annexure-A presented the instant writ petition. He has also sought for a direction directing the 2nd Respondent to forthwith reinstate the Petitioner into his original post, granting all the consequential benefits, like, full back wages, continuity of service, promotion as if there was no order of discharge and to pay him full salary from the date of discharge till the date of reinstatement.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the Petitioner claims that, he has been appointed as civil police constable as per the appointment order dated 08.07.1993, by sponsor from the District Employment Exchange, Bidar. The Petitioner was selected for the post of civil police constable on probation for a period of two years or till their serves are declared to have been satisfactorily completed and the said appointment made is purely on temporary basis and his services could be terminated at any time, if they are found unfit during the period of probation. Before completion of probationary period of two years, his services has been discharged on 27.7.1996, produced vide Annexure A4, as per the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, on the basis of the report submitted by the PSI, Hulsur police station dated 14.6.1996, stating that, civil police constable - 1212 of Hulsur Police Station who is found unfit and unsuitable for the post of civil police constable during the period of his probation is hereby discharged from service under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 and he is unsuitable to hold the post.

(3.) Assailing the correctness of the discharge from the service dated 27.7.1996 and the endorsement issued dated 26.6.2002, vide Annexure A10, the Petitioner filed A. No. 10847/2002 on the file of the tribunal. The said matter had come up for consideration before the tribunal on 22.05.2009. The tribunal after hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the Respondents, after thorough evaluation of the relevant material on the file, has dismissed the application holding that it was an independent decision of the appointing authority who considered the suitability of the Petitioner to be in the post where he was a probationer, leading to the decision that, the Petitioner was not suitable, not on the ground of any criminal case against the Petitioner and he secured acquittal for that. Being aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the tribunal, seeking appropriate releif as stated supra, Petitioner felt necessitated to present this writ petition.