Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ajay Ramesh Dinode, was appointed as a District Judge by nomination in August 2014 and posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge. He was later assigned as Special Judge for NSEL scam cases. While discharging his duties, the State Government issued an order on 23 June 2017 discharging him from service under Rule 13(4)(ii)(b) and Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008. The petitioner challenged the order contending that it was punitive, passed without any inquiry, and violated Articles 14, 16, 21, 309, 311(2), and 226 of the Constitution. The court examined whether the discharge was valid and whether Rule 13(4)(ii)(b) was constitutional. The court held that the discharge was punitive in nature as it was based on allegations of misconduct and cast a stigma, thus attracting Article 311(2). The court further held that Rule 13(4)(ii)(b) is ultra vires Articles 14 and 311(2) as it allows termination without any opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the court quashed the discharge order and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Probationer - Discharge without Inquiry - Rule 13(4)(ii)(b) of Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008 - The court examined whether discharge of a probationer District Judge without holding a disciplinary inquiry is valid. Held that the rule is ultra vires Articles 14 and 311(2) as it allows termination without giving opportunity of hearing, and the discharge in this case was punitive in nature (Paras 1-33). B) Constitutional Law - Article 311(2) - Protection to Probationer - The court considered whether a probationer is entitled to protection under Article 311(2) when discharge is by way of punishment. Held that if the order of discharge is founded on misconduct and casts stigma, it amounts to punishment and requires an inquiry (Paras 20-30). C) Service Law - Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008 - Rule 13(4)(ii)(b) - Validity - The court examined the validity of Rule 13(4)(ii)(b) which permits discharge of a probationer without assigning any reason. Held that the rule is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 as it confers unguided power on the appointing authority (Paras 25-33).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of discharge from service passed under Rule 13(4)(ii)(b) and Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008, without holding a disciplinary inquiry, is legal and valid, and whether such discharge amounts to punishment attracting Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the discharge order dated 23 June 2017, and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. Rule 13(4)(ii)(b) was held ultra vires Articles 14 and 311(2).
Law Points
- Rule 13(4)(ii)(b) of Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules
- 2008 is ultra vires Articles 14 and 311(2) of Constitution of India
- discharge without inquiry is punitive
- probationer entitled to protection if discharge is by way of punishment
