SHAMPA NATH Vs. THE HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original writ petitioner late Sri Somnath Gangopadhyay was selected to the Tripura Judicial Service Grade III (TJS) in December 2003. He was appointed on probation for a period of two years on 24.5.2004. After completion of his training, he was initially posted at Udaipur as Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) cum Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class. On 20th August, 2007 the State of Tripura issued a notification discharging the services of the petitioner treating him as a probationer with immediate effect. That order was challenged by the petitioner by means of this writ petition.

(2.) UNFORTUNATELY , the original writ petitioner committed suicide on 25.12.2012. Thereafter his widow Ms. Shampa Nath applied for being brought on record and vide order dated 20th June, 2013 she was permitted to represent the estate of the original petitioner. Ms. Shampa Nath appeared in person and has argued the matter and also submitted her detailed written submissions running into 97 pages. However, if we go through the detailed submissions, there are only few grounds of challenge. The first ground is that the petitioner had completed his period of probation and was deemed to be a confirmed employee and therefore, his services could not have been discharged by treating him to be a probationer. The second ground is that even if he was discharged during probation, the grounds for discharge should have been indicated in the order of discharge in terms of sub -rule (6) of Rule 15 of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003. The third ground is that the order of discharge is illegal because it is based on unfounded and unverified allegations which were not inquired into and all of which allegations are in the nature of misconduct and that in view of such allegations, an inquiry was necessary. Lastly it is contended that the entire action against the petitioner was malafide and allegations of malafide had been levelled against respondent no. 4, the then Registrar of the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court, respondent no. 5 who was the then District and Sessions Judge, Agartala, respondent no. 6, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agartala and allegations of malafide had also been levelled against various other officers of the Tripura Judicial Service and ministerial staff of the Court as well as the Tripura Judicial Officers Association.

(3.) THE petitioner was appointed on 24.5.2004 and as per sub -rule (2) of Rule 15 he was to be on a probation for a period of 2(two) years. Admittedly, after completion of 2(two) years no order of confirmation was passed. No order of extension of his period of probation was passed. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that Sri Somnath Gangopadhyay having completed his period of probation of 2 years is deemed to be a confirmed officer. We are not in agreement with this submission. Sub -rule (3) of Rule 15 permits the extension of period of probation for a further period not exceeding the original period of probation i.e. 2 years. Therefore, it is envisaged that the total period of probation can be four years. However, sub -rule (5) clearly lays down that a person shall not be considered to have satisfactorily completed the period of probation, unless a specific order to that effect is passed. This sub -rule also provides that any delay in passing such an order will not give right to the person to claim that he is deemed to have satisfactorily completed the period of probation. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the original writ petitioner had not completed his period of probation and was therefore still on probation.