case of discharge simpliciter and during the probationary period,
there is a reference made to a discreet inquiry. The discreet
inquiry revealed that the petitioner was found under the
influence of alcohol while residing as a trainee Judge at the
Academy. There was a complaint or a confidential report
received from the Joint Director of the said Academy bringing to
the notice of the Registrar General of this Court this incident.
The incident is stated to have occurred twice, on 2912012 and
522012. There was a discreet inquiry with the colleagues and
the staff and thereafter this report was forwarded. This report
was considered by the Administrative Committee of Judges on
15-2-2012. Thereafter, at a further meeting held on
20-3-2012, a decision was taken to discharge the petitioner from
judicial service. That decision was communicated to the Law and
Judiciary Department of the State of Maharashtra, whereupon
the impugned order was served on the petitioner.
None of the decisions citied by Mr. Arjunwadkar lay
down any absolute principle. None of the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court hold that merely because some
preliminary or discreet inquiry is held while judging for
assessing the performance and in an overall manner of a
probationer, that the foundation of the order ultimately passed
of discharging him from service is a misconduct. It is always
open for the authorities while assessing and considering the
performance in an overall manner to take note of some event
and incident. Merely because they take note of it or called for a
report about the same from the superior of the person like the
petitioner, does not mean that they desire to hold a fullfledged
inquiry or there is a decision to terminate the services on
account of some misconduct. The decisions also refer to cases
where inquiries were commenced under the relevant Service
Rules but they were not taken to their logical conclusion and
end. During the pendency of the same, a probationer was
discharged for unsatisfactory performance. Thus, the law
enables assessment of the performance and conduct of a Judicial
Officer. All the more if an overall assessment reveals that the
probationer is unsuitable for continuation in service any further,
then, an order of discharge simpliciter can be passed. Precisely,
such is the nature of the impugned order. The order does not
refer to any misconduct. There is no need to go behind it or the
allegations that the petitioner makes in the affidavit in rejoinder.
We do not think that the record indicates, even from the
information generated by the petitioner under the Right to
Information Act, that the foundation or basis for the impugned
order is the petitioner's alleged misconduct or misbehaviour at
the Academy. His performance is assessed in an overall manner
for finding out whether he is suitable to be continued in service.
He was appointed on 28-12-2011. A periodical assessment of his
performance could have always been undertaken and the Rules
permit this course of action. Therefore, during the probationary
period, in March 2012, the petitioner's performance was
assessed and an occasion for the same could be some complaint
or incident which had occurred during the course of the training
at the Academy. That by itself and without anything more does
not mean that the petitioner has been terminated for some
misconduct and which required an inquiry to precede the same.
There was no need for an inquiry, much less a fullfledged
Departmental one. That was not necessitated at all. This was a
case of assessment of the performance of a Judicial Officer who
is a probationer and finding him unsuitable for continuation in
service any further discharging him from service. It is a
termination simpliciter.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2733 OF 2013
Gurunath Dinkar Mane,
V
State of Maharashtra
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2016
Citation: 2016(6) ALLMR 545
