Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgement: 21st January, 2003
Bench: Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Justice H.K. Sema
Facts of the Case: The respondent was appointed as a Police Constable on probation for a period of two years and six months. He joined service as a Police Constable on 26.6.1992. Though, the period of probation came to an end on 2.12.1994, the respondent, however, continued on the post. On 14.3.1996, probation period of the respondent was extended by one year and three months. The respondent was discharged from service by an order dated 12.11.1997 in exercise of powers under Rule 6(1) of Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Rules) as his services during the period of probation were stated to be found unsatisfactory. Aggrieved by the order of discharge, the respondent filed an application before the Tribunal on 24.12.1997 being application No. 17 of 1998, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 25.9.1998. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent had filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which was allowed by the High Court setting aside the order of Tribunal and also the order discharging the respondent from service. Hence the appeal in the SC.
Judgement of the Case: The Supreme Court held that sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 requires that a probationer shall not be considered to have satisfactorily completed the probation unless a specific order to that effect is passed. No specific order having been passed by any authority, certifying the satisfactorily completion of probation period of the respondent, has been brought to our notice. Mr. Hegde, learned counsel, submitted that no order as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 has been passed by the competent authority. Admittedly, the order discharging the respondent, in exercise of powers under Rule 6, has been passed after the extended period of probation was over. The SC further said that itself would not entitle the respondent to have claimed deemed confirmation in absence of the specific order to that effect. In service jurisprudence confirmation of service on a particular post is preceded by satisfactory performance of the incumbent unless service rules otherwise prescribe. In the instant case sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules provides that unless there is a specific order that the probationer has satisfactorily completed the period of probation, he shall not be entitled to be deemed to have satisfactorily completed the probation by reason of his being continued in service beyond the extended period of probation. The High Court has failed to consider this important aspect of the matter, resulting in miscarriage of justice. In our view, the High Court fell into error resulting in miscarriage of justice. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the High Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS