Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramesh S/O Shankar Rao Doddamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
WP No. 46965 of 2011
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 46965 OF 2011 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH S/O. SHANKARRAO DODDAMANI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
CIVIL JUDGE (JR DN), OOD, LEAVE RESERVE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE,
R/O. C/O. PRANESH V. KULKARNI,
"PADMASHREE", PLOT NO.2302,
VANISHREE NAGAR, SATTUR,
DHARWAD-580 009.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANT P.SAVADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (ADMN-1),
DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS,
MANJANNA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
E
2. THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E
BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
Location: HIGH COURT REGISTRAR GENERAL,
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.02.18
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE.
10:31:33 +0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTIO OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 31.12.2010 MADE IN GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE
FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS &
OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE (ANNEXURE-W), AND
EXTEND ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE BENEFITS AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
WP No. 46965 of 2011
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the Government order dated 31.12.2010, whereby, the petitioner, Civil Judge (Junior Division), was discharged from service in exercise of the powers under Rule 5(1)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 ('Rules' for short).
2. The petitioner entered the Karnataka Judicial Service pursuant to a selection process and joined as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the year 1991, subject to probation under the Rules. Owing to non-passing of the Kannada language examination, an order of discharge came to be passed in the year 1998. The said order was challenged and Division Bench of this Court set aside the discharge, holding that the termination was attributable only to non-passing of the language examination not on grounds of merit or integrity.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763 WP No. 46965 of 2011 HC-KAR
3. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 01.04.2005. However, he continued to be on probation, and his suitability for confirmation was required to be assessed afresh.
4. During the reinstatement period, the petitioner worked at different stations. His performance was assessed through "Annual Confidential Reports" (ACR), disposal statement and other administrative inputs. The petitioner was not confirmed in service. His case was placed before the administrative Committee-III of the High Court, which examined the entire service records and opined that the petitioner was not suitable for confirmation. The recommendation of the administrative Committee was thereafter placed before the Full Court, which, in its meeting dated 08.10.2010, approved the recommendation. Based on the approval of the Full Court, the State Government issued the impugned Government order dated 31.12.2010, discharging the petitioner from service. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has filed.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763 WP No. 46965 of 2011 HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that:
i. In substance that the petitioner was kept on probation for inordinately long period, which is impermissible in law.
ii. The impugned discharge, though coached as a probationary discharge, is punitive in substance, being founded on adverse material.
iii. The confidential reports relied upon was never communicated, rendering the action arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
iv. The earlier Division Bench judgment reinstating the petitioner precluded the respondents from reassessing his suitability. v. The action violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763 WP No. 46965 of 2011 HC-KAR
6. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:
i. Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India and Others1 (Anoop Jaiswal), ii. Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satvendra Nath Bose National Cente for Basi Sciences, Calcutta2 (Dipti Prakash), iii. Mery Kutty Vs. The Hindusthan Times, Bangalore and Another3 (Mery Kutty), iv. Sharanabasappa Andanappa Chiniwar Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police4 (Sharanabasappa), v. Zahur Mulla Vs. Union on India and Others5 (Zahur Mulla), to contend that where termination is founded on adverse material or casts a stigma, it is punitive and unsustainable without due process.
1 (1984) 2 SCC 369 2 1999-Air(SC)-0-983 3 2007(3) KAR. L.J 294 4 WP.No.26679 of 1982 D.D 25.08.1986 5 ILR 2014 KAR 1521 -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763 WP No. 46965 of 2011 HC-KAR
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner was never confirmed in service due to unsatisfactory performance. After reinstatement on 01.04.2005, the petitioner's performance was reviewed, confidential reports (2004- 2008), consistently showed lack of improvement and unsatisfactory work. The case was placed before the administrative Committee-III of the High Court (consisting of Senior Judges). The committee considered ACRs, vigilance records and overall work performance and resolved that the petitioner was unsuitable to be confirmed as a Civil Judge and the recommendation was placed before the Full Court, which approved the decision on 08.10.2010. Based on this, the Government passed the discharge order dated 31.12.2010 under Rule 5 (1)(b) of the Rules.
8. It is asserted that the discharge is simple, non- punitive and non-stigmatic and no formal enquiry was required as the petitioner was a probationer and the discharge is based only on unsuitability and work -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763 WP No. 46965 of 2011 HC-KAR performance, not misconduct. Reliance is placed on the following decision:
i. Khazia Mohammed Muzammil Vs. State of Karnataka and Another6 (Khazia Mohammed), ii. Chaitanya Prakash and Another Vs. H. Omkarappa7 (Chaitanya), iii. H. F. Sangati Vs. Registrar General High Court of Karnataka and Others8 (H. F. Sangati), iv. Samsher Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab9 (Samsher Singh), and submits that a probationer has no right to confirmation. Discharge during probation for unsatisfactory service is valid and does not attract Article 311. It is submitted that the writ petition has to be dismissed with costs as being devoid of merits.
6 (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 573 7 2010 (1) SCC (L&S) 644 8 (2001) 3 SCC 117 9 (1974) 2 SCC 831 -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763 WP No. 46965 of 2011 HC-KAR
9. Learned counsel AGA for the State submits that the petitioner's discharge was a legal right and justifies the petitioner's discharge as lawful termination of a prohibition based on a service assessment approved by the administrative committee-III and the Full Court and the discharge is made as per Rule 5 (1)(b) of the Rules, and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the Government Order dated 31.12.2010, discharging the petitioner from the service under Rule 5 (1)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, suffers from illegality, arbitrariness or procedural impropriety?"
11. For proper appreciation, Rule 5 of the Rules reads as under:
"5. Declaration of satisfactory completion of probation etc. - (1) At the end -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763 WP No. 46965 of 2011 HC-KAR of the prescribed or, as the case may be, the reduced or extended period of probation, the Appointing Authority shall consider the suitability of the probationer to hold the post to which he was appointed, and.-
(a) if it decides that the probationer is suitable to hold the post to which he was appointed and has passed the special examinations or tests, if any, required to be passed during the period of probation it shall, as soon as possible, issue an order declaring the probationer to have satisfactorily completed his probation and such an order shall have effect from the date of the expiry of the prescribed, reduced or extended period of probation;
(b) if the Appointing Authority decides that the probationer is not suitable to hold the post to which he was appointed or has not passed the special examinations or special tests, if any, required to be passed during the period of probation, it shall, unless the period of probation is extended under rule 4, by order, discharge him from service.
(2) A probationer shall not be considered to have satisfactorily completed the probation unless a
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763 WP No. 46965 of 2011 HC-KAR specific order to that effect is passed. Any delay in the issue of an order under sub-rule (1) shall not entitle the probationer to be deemed to have satisfactorily completed his probation."
12. The Rule clearly vests the appointing authority with a power to discharge a probationer on the ground of unsuitability without holding a departmental enquiry provided the action is bona fide and not stigmatic. The petitioner continued to hold the status of a probationer. Confirmation is not automatic and depends upon the assessment of suitability. The material on record discloses that the petitioner's suitability was examined by the administrative committee and therefore after by the Full Court, which is the administrative body of the High Court. The impugned order is not stigmatic and does not attribute any misconduct or moral turpitude to the petitioner.
13. This Court, in exercise of judicial review, cannot sit in appeal over the assessment of suitability made by the appointing authority unless mala fides, arbitrariness or
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763 WP No. 46965 of 2011 HC-KAR perversity is demonstrated. No such case is made out. The judgments relied by the petitioner's counsel in Anoop Jaiswal and Dipti Prakash, lay down the principle that if termination is founded on allegation of mis-allegations or misconduct, it is punitive. However, in the present case, the order of discharge does not record any allegation of misconduct nor does it cast any stigma. The foundation of the Order is unsuitability for confirmation, not misconduct. The judgments relied upon in Mery Kutty, Sharanabasappa and Zahur Mulla, these judgment cautioned against indefinite probation and reliance on uncommunicated adverse remarks. Here, the petitioner was periodically reviewed by the constitutional authorities of the High Court. The continuation of probation and eventual discharge followed an institutional decision of the Full Court, which stands on a different footing from the routine departmental action. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner reiterate settled principles, however, each case turns on its own facts, and none of the said decisions dilute
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763 WP No. 46965 of 2011 HC-KAR the power of the employer to discharge a probation found unsuitable, when such decision is taken bona fide and by a competent authority.
14. On the contrary, the judgments relied by the respondents in case of Khazia Mohammed, the principle is that the probationer has no vested or indefensible right to confirmation. The appointing authority is entitled to assess overall suitability, and if the probationer is found unsuitable, discharge during probation is permissible. The judicial review is limited to examining mala fides or perversity and not the sufficiency of material evidence. The said judgment applies to the present facts as the petitioner's continuation as a probationer does not create a right to confirmation and that discharge under Rule 5 (1)(b) is legally permissible.
15. The judgment in Chaitanya's case, the principle lay down is that even after the extension of probation an employee continues to be a probationer until confirmed by an express order and that a employer discharged on the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763 WP No. 46965 of 2011 HC-KAR ground of unsuitability does not amount to punishment and the employer is not required to hold departmental enquiry, when the discharge is non-stigmatic and the judgment squarely applies to the present fact, as the discharge of the petitioner without enquiry is justified, as the order does not cast stigma or record misconduct. In H. F. Sangati's case, it related to the judicial officers, assessment of suitability by the administrative committee and the Full Court carries great weight. The Courts should exercise self-restraint and not interfere with the administrative decisions relating to service suitability unless arbitrariness or mala fides are shown. A probationer in judicial service has no automatic right to confirmation and the said judgment squarely applies to the present facts.
16. The termination is not punitive merely because it follows an assessment of work or conduct unless the order expressly or by necessarily implicate stigma, it remains a termination simplicitor and the argument of the petitioner's counsel that it is stigmatic could not hold water. In
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763 WP No. 46965 of 2011 HC-KAR Samsher Singh's case, the distinction between motive and foundation is laid out. If the misconduct is merely the motive and not the foundation of termination, the order remains non-punitive and the probationary discharge based on assessment of suitability does not attract Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
17. The consistent line of decisions stated supra establishes that a probationer has no right to confirmation that the discharge on ground of unsuitability under the Rules is legally permissible, that such discharge is not punitive or stigmative, if no misconduct is recorded and that in case of judicial officers, decision of the administrative committee and the Full Court merit the highest degree of judicial reference.
18. For foregoing reasons, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following:
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763 WP No. 46965 of 2011 HC-KAR ORDER The writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23