Case Note & Summary
The petition arose from a writ petition filed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the termination of the petitioner's services as Mamlatdar by the Government of Goa. The petitioner, Shri Prashant Mandrekar, had been appointed as Mamlatdar/Joint Mamlatdar/Assistant Director of Civil Supplies on 15 February 2002, on probation for two years. He passed the departmental examination conducted by the Goa Public Service Commission between 5 February 2004 and 10 February 2004, and was informed of this on 22 July 2004. On 10 May 2005, he was placed under suspension under Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, following his arrest by ACB Vigilance in Crime No.1/2005/ACB/Vig for an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Rule 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was released on bail on 30 April 2005. The suspension order was revoked vide order dated 29 January 2007. By the same order dated 29 January 2007, his services as Mamlatdar were terminated forthwith pursuant to the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The petitioner filed an appeal dated 15 March 2007, but the Under Secretary (Personnel-II) informed him by letter dated 12 June 2007 that there was no provision for filing an appeal against the impugned order under Rule 5. He then addressed a revision to the Governor of Goa dated 12 December 2007; by letter dated 3 June 2008, the Under Secretary (Personnel-I) informed him that the Governor had accepted the view of the Department communicated earlier. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court. The High Court issued Rule on 8 February 2010. The matter was reserved on 2 December 2022 and judgment pronounced on 15 December 2022. The core legal issue was whether the petitioner was deemed to have satisfactorily completed his probation and become a permanent employee upon completion of two years and passing the departmental examination, and thus whether his termination under the temporary service rules was illegal. The petitioner contended that the recruitment rules published in the Official Gazette dated 31 May 1996 provided for two years' probation, and that after passing the departmental examination and completing two years, he was deemed confirmed. He argued that terminating a permanent employee without due process under Article 311 of the Constitution was illegal and placed reliance on Khazia Muha Manzil v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 155. The respondent argued that no formal confirmation order had been issued by the Government, so the petitioner remained a probationer; his suspension order was withdrawn on the premise that he was not a confirmed employee; after withdrawal, termination under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 was proper. The court framed the short question as above and proceeded to consider the rival contentions. The available excerpt of the judgment ended without recording the final operative decision; therefore, the final holding and directions could not be ascertained from the provided text.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Probation and Confirmation - Deemed completion of probation upon passing departmental examination - Goa Government Recruitment Rules, 1996 (Notification dated 31.05.1996) - The petitioner was appointed as Mamlatdar on probation for two years vide order dated 15.02.2002. He passed the departmental examination conducted by Goa Public Service Commission on 10.02.2004. The petitioner contended that completion of two years and passing the examination deemed his probation satisfactorily completed, thereby confirming him as a permanent employee. The respondent contended that no specific confirmation order was issued, so the petitioner continued as a probationer. (Paras 5, 12-14) B) Constitutional Law - Protection of Civil Servants - Article 311 of the Constitution of India - Article 311, Constitution of India - The petitioner argued that being a confirmed employee, his termination without following the due process under Article 311 was illegal. The respondent argued that the petitioner was not confirmed and remained a probationer, thus Article 311 did not apply. The court framed the core issue whether the petitioner had become a permanent employee entitled to protection under Article 311. (Paras 12, 14, 17) C) Service Law - Termination of Temporary Government Servant - Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, Rule 5(1) - The termination order dated 29.01.2007 invoked the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 and terminated the petitioner's services as Mamlatdar forthwith. The petitioner challenged this order on the ground that he was a permanent employee and could not be terminated under temporary service rules. Both parties relied on Khazia Muha Manzil v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 155. The court considered whether the termination of an allegedly confirmed employee under temporary service rules was valid. (Paras 9, 12-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is deemed to have satisfactorily completed the period of probation on completion of 2 years and after passing the departmental examination conducted by GPSC, and thereby become permanent employee; whether termination of a permanent employee without following Article 311 is illegal; whether termination under Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is valid for a probationer.
Law Points
- Probation deemed completed on passing departmental examination
- confirmation requires specific order
- termination under Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules
- 1965
- Article 311 protection for permanent employees
- applicability of Khazia Muha Manzil case
