Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. S. B. Khandelwal, was selected and appointed as Civil Judge, J.D. and Judicial Magistrate First Class on 12/9/2004 on probation for two years. Her probation was extended up to 11/9/2007. She was transferred to Thane in May 2008. On 21/10/2008, the State Government issued an order discontinuing her service with one month's salary in lieu of notice, based on recommendations of the High Court on its administrative side. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution. She contended that her disposal was rated as 'noteworthy' until April 2007, no adverse remarks were communicated to her, and the termination was punitive without hearing. She also argued that under the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, probation cannot exceed two years, and no order extending probation beyond 11/9/2007 was passed before the termination. The court examined the letters from the District Judge praising her disposal and noted that the termination was based on adverse confidential reports not disclosed to her. The court held that the termination was punitive and violated principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given. The court quashed the termination order and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Probationer - Natural Justice - Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956, Rule 4(iv)(b) - Termination of a probationer civil judge without extending probation period beyond statutory limit and without giving opportunity of hearing is illegal - Held that the impugned order is punitive and based on adverse remarks not communicated, violating principles of natural justice (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of a probationer judicial officer without extending probation period as per rules and without giving opportunity of hearing is valid
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 21/10/2008 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Probation period cannot be extended beyond statutory limit
- Termination without hearing is punitive
- Adverse remarks must be communicated
- Rule 4(iv)(b) of Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules
- 1956 requires opportunity of hearing
Case Details
Writ Petition No. 2511 of 2009
B. H. Marlapalle, U. D. Salvi
Mr. M. P. Vashi i/by M.P. Vashi and Associate for petitioner, Mr. Samir Patil, AGP for respondent No.1, Mr. V. R. Dhond for respondent No.2
The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Law and Judiciary Department, The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging termination of a probationer civil judge
Remedy Sought
Quashing of termination order dated 21/10/2008 and reinstatement with continuity of service
Filing Reason
Termination without extending probation period as per rules and without giving opportunity of hearing
Issues
Whether the termination of the petitioner without extending probation period beyond 11/9/2007 is valid
Whether the termination order is punitive and based on uncommunicated adverse remarks
Whether the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before termination
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that her disposal was 'noteworthy' and no adverse remarks were communicated; termination was punitive without hearing; probation period cannot be extended beyond two years under Maharashtra Rules, 2008.
Respondents argued that the termination was in accordance with Rule 4(iv)(b) of Bombay Rules and based on recommendations of High Court.
Ratio Decidendi
Termination of a probationer without extending probation period as per rules and without giving opportunity of hearing is punitive and violative of principles of natural justice. Adverse remarks must be communicated to the employee before being used as basis for termination.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner came to be selected and appointed to the post of Civil Judge, J.D. and Judicial Magistrate First Class with effect from 12/9/2004 and her appointment was on probation for a period of two years, which could be extended.
It is submitted by the petitioner that as per the remarks communicated to her, the disposal given by her till April, 2007 was noted to be 'noteworthy'.
The petitioner has placed on record the letters dated 26/9/2006, 2/12/2006, 5/3/2007, 21/4/2007, 23/7/2007 and 18/12/2007 she received under the signature of the District Judge and in all these letters she was informed that her disposal was rated as 'noteworthy'.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed on 12/9/2004 on probation for two years. Probation extended up to 11/9/2007. Transferred to Thane in May 2008. Termination order issued on 21/10/2008. Writ petition filed on 9/1/2009. Heard on 18/10/2010 and judgment pronounced on 15/11/2010.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956: Rule 4(iv)(b)
- Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008:
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138
- Constitution of India: Article 226
