Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyam Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2013
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 14067 OF 2008 (s)
Shri Shyam Kumar Yadav Petitioner
versus
State of M. P. and another Respondents
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon
Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Aradhe
......................................................................................................
Shri Pranay Verma for the petitioner.
Shri R. B. Tiwari for respondent no. 1.
Shri V. S. Shroti with Shri Vikram Johri for respondent
no. 2 .
..................................................................................................
ORDER
(10/01/13) As per Rajendra Menon, J:-
Challenging the order passed Annexure P-1 dated 29/01/08 passed by the State Govt. terminating the appointment of the petitioner during the period of probation, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. Petitioner was appointed temporarily on probation as a Civil Judge in the M. P. Judicial Service vide order dated 31/07/03. His appointment initially was for a period of two years. After completing the initial training on induction to the service, he was posted as Civil Judge Class-II and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar. Finding his service during the period of probation to be unsatisfactory and treating him to be unfit to be continued in service, his services have been brought to an end by exercising powers available to the competent authority under Rule 8(4) of the M. P. Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 and, therefore, challenging the said order, petitioner is before this 2 Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that after he had completed the period of training, his work was assessed by various judicial officers. The District Judge, Sagar and the District Judge (Vigilance), Jabalpur Zone assessed his service and he was continued in service on his work being found satisfactory. Thereafter, inspection notes were prepared and certain advisories were made and on 19/04/06 the respondent no. 2 thought it fit to extend this period for another one year. During the extended period of service, it is stated that his services have been brought to an end.
4. Inter alia contending that the services of the petitioner have been terminated without any justification and referring to certain inspection reports available on record with regard to the general assessment of the work of the petitioner, it is tried to be emphasized that petitioner has been dealt with in an unreasonable manner and even though, he has a satisfactory work, his services have been terminated.
5. Shri V. S. Shroti refutes the aforesaid and takes me through the material available on record indicating the overall performance of the petitioner during the period of probation and argues that as the services of the petitioner during the period of probation was unsatisfactory, he was advised to improve on various dates and his probation was also extended vide order dated 19/04/06 by a further period of one year. His work was found to be unsatisfactory. The Full Court in its meeting held on 12/01/08 resolved to terminate the services referring to the recommendations of the administrative committee no. 3 Annexure R-3 recommending for extending the probation of the petitioner.
6. A decision was taken on the said resolution of the said committee by the Full Court vide Annexure R-4 and the order was subsequently passed for extension of probation. Shri Shroti submits that the action was taken initially to extend the services of the petitioner and to grant him one more opportunity to show improvement. During the extended period of probation, he did not 3 show any improvement. The matter was taken up by the administrative committee on 9/01/08 and a recommendation was made to terminate his services during the extended period of probation. This recommendation was accepted by the Full Court in its decision and as recommendations were accepted by the High Court which is based on due analysis of the petitioner's service during the period of probation, Shri Shroti submits that no interference is called for.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, petitioner was initially appointed on probation for a period of two years and after assessing his work in the initial period of probation when his services were not found satisfactory, a resolution was passed by the Full Court during the extended period of probation, the services of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and the impugned action is taken. Assessment of the services of the petitioner as a probationer and the satisfaction to be arrived at in not continuing the employee in service is an administrative action to be taken by the competent authority and a writ Court is not supposed to interfere into the matter when a subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the administrative authority until and unless statutory provisions are shown to be violated or arbitrariness and malafides established.
8. In the present case, if the reasons given by the respondents for taking the impugned action are analysed, it would be seen that during the initial period of probation, the Distt. Judge, Sagar in his report for the period ending 31st December, 2004 found that the judgment of the petitioner are of average quality, he was directed to work hard and improve the quality of judgment. Thereafter, based on the inspection done by the Portfolio Judge, the Distt. Judge awarded him 'D' grading and his disposal was also found to be below the required minimum. He earned only 1.92 unit during the period ending 31st December, 2004.
9. For the period ending 31st December 2005, the work of the petitioner was graded as 'E' and with regard to his integrity, a complaint was received and an enquiry was ordered which was 4 conducted by the District Judge (Vigilance) Jabalpur. The general assessment of the work of the petitioner was found to be below average during this period and Hon'ble the Chief Justice accepted the Grade 'E' awarded by the Distt. Judge, Sagar. Thereafter, taking note of the aforesaid short-comings in his service, the period of probation was extended as is indicated hereinabove and during this period of probation, the work of the petitioner did not improve. He was again categorized as a below average employee, his relationship with the Bar was not found to be proper. It was found in the judgments that marshaling of evidence is not done properly and his relationship with superiors and the members of the Bar was also found to be adverse. Few complaints with regard to his integrity were also received and for the period ending 31st December 2007, the Distt. Judge graded him 'D' and communicated certain adverse remarks to him with regard to his overall performance vide Annexure R-1. It is also seen that with regard to a complaint received against the petitioner, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted by the Distt. Judge (Vigilance) vide Annexure R-2 and in the report submitted by the then Distt. Judge (Vigilance) on 9/12/05, it was found that prima facie some of the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioner seems to be correct.
10. Taking note of the totality of the circumstances and the overall performance of the petitioner and also the report of the Distt. Judge (Vigilance) vide Annexure R-2, the entire matter was scrutinized by the administrative committee in its meeting held on 9/01/08 and a recommendation was made to terminate the services of the petitioner during the period of probation which was accepted by the Full Court in its meeting held on 12/01/08.
11. From the aforesaid narration of fact, it is clear that a decision to terminate the services of the petitioner during the period of probation was taken up by the High Court based on a proper evaluation of the work of the petitioner and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the High Court in this regard cannot be termed as perverse, arbitrary or illegal to such an extent that 5 interference is called for.
12. Accordingly, finding no case made out for interference, the petition is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) (Alok Aradhe)
Judge Judge
Vy/-