ANKALKOTI RAJENDRA SHANTHAPPA CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DIVISION) (RELIEVED) S/O. SRI. SHANTHAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAW (ADMINISTRATION) M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001 AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was recruited as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to a Notification dated 29.5.1998. The select list under the provisions of the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ' the KJS Rules' for brevity.) was notified on 2.7.1998. After completing the training period, the petitioner was posted as II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC at Sagar in Shimoga District with effect from 29.11.1999. He was relieved on 22.11.2000 by virtue of an order of transfer to Chittapur in Gulbarga District. He joined as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC at Chittapur on 1.12.2000. He worked there till 28.7.2001 and thereafter was transferred as I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Kolar Gold Fields and he worked there till 15.2.2003 and from 17.2.2003 he was placed in leave vacancy in the High of Court of Karnataka. He was relieved on 26.5.2003 and was posted as the Registrar, Small Causes Court, Bangalore. It is the claim of the petitioner that through out the above period, the petitioner had discharged his duties diligently and there were no adverse remarks against the petitioner in connection with his duties, except that the Registrar (General) had informed him that mere was an entry in his Service Record, to the effect that he needs greater control over the office staff and the said communication was dated 4.4.2003. The petitioner did furnish his explanation by way of reply. On 15.4.2004, there was one other communication which advised the petitioner that the quality of judgments, language and narration was satisfactory, but that there was scope for improvement. While also mentioning his conduct and dignity inside and outside the Court was satisfactory. There was still scope for improvement.

(2.) IT is the petitioner's case that though the period of probation prescribed had elapsed, the probation was not declared, not only in respect of the petitioner, but in respect of others, who had been selected along with him. Incidentally, it is stated that when he was working as Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Kolar Gold Fields, he, along with three other Civil Judges, also working at Kolar Gold Fields, were directed to meet the Administrative Judge of the Kolar District at Bangalore on 31.1.2003. There was an informal inquiry into certain allegations made by some members of the Bar of Kolar Gold Fields, which was duly answered with appropriate explanations by the petitioner. When he was at Bangalore, there was a further inquiry by the Inspector attached to the Registrar - Vigilance of the High Court. Apart from these informal discussions, there was no indication of any specific charges or other allegations brought to the attention of the petitioner.

(3.) IT is further contended that in terms of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Probation Rules' for brevity), the period of probation prescribed is two years and the period commenced, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, with effect from 27.6.1999 and came to a close on 25.7.2001. The respondents could have extended the period of probation in terms of Rule -4 for reasons to be recorded in writing by the Governor for such period not exceeding half of the prescribed period of probation. If within the prescribed or extended period, the probationer has to appear for examination or a test required to be passed during the period of probation, and if the result is not known before the expiry of such period, then the period of probation shall be deemed to have been extended until the publication of the results of such examination or test. The petitioner, on the other hand, was exempted from appearing for the Kannada Language examination, which is the only examination prescribed and since under Rule 5, it was required that a declaration of satisfactory completion of probation was to be made at the end of the prescribed period or the extended period and as there was he extension, nor was any order passed at the end of the probationary period and the petitioner having continued in service after the prescribed period and having served as a Judicial Officer for a period, of five years, there is deemed satisfactory completion of probation, in which event, it is contended that it was not open for the petitioner to have been terminated from service without valid reasons and therefore, the order of discharge, which is punitive in nature, is wholly illegal and arbitrary.