SUBHASH RAGHUVIR JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is praying for a declaration that he came to be confirmed with effect from 5-6-1996 and is entitled for continuity as well as for consequential benefits from that date. He further prays for quashing the notification issued by respondents No. 1 and 2 on 28th March, 2000 by which his service as a probationer Judge of the City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, came to be terminated.

(2.) THE petitioner came to be appointed as a Judge in the Bombay City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay with effect from 5th June, 1995. The order dated 29th April, 1995 shows that it was on probation for one year. On 7-7-1997 by passing a resolution it came to be extended for a period of two years i. e. 4-6-1996 to 4-6-1998. Again, it came to be extended for a period of one year from 5-6-1998 to 4-6-1999. Notification/order dated 28th March, 2000 came to be issued. The said notification/order inter alia says:-

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner first submitted that the petitioner cannot be treated as a probationer as immediately after the expiry of one year of his probation period, he ought to be treated as a confirmed Judge. In support of his submission, he relied upon the letter dated 15-12-1999 asking him his willingness to be appointed as a Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, at Mumbai, Pune or Aurangabad. The learned Counsel next submitted that the notification/order clearly casts a stigma upon the petitioner and hence, it is punitive termination. This has been done without holding any inquiry against the petitioner and is in violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India. Hence, it requires to be set aside. He relied upon some judgments in support. The learned Counsel also submitted that the record of the petitioner was very good and there was no reason not to confirm him. In support of his submission, he relied upon the letters received from the High Court about his disposal. He also relied upon the letters issued to the petitioner by the Registrar of the City Civil Court, Bombay, dated 2nd January, 2001 and 3rd January, 2001, by which it has been pointed out as to how many civil and criminal cases dealt with by him, how many orders passed by him came to be challenged in the High Court and how many are set aside. It is pointed out that hardly 2% of the orders have been set aside by the High Court.