Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(c) On 6th March, 1976 the initial period of two years of the petitioner as probationer came to an end.

(d) By an order dated 9th September, 1976 passed by the Government of Maharashtra the probationary period of the petitioner came to be extended by six months commencing from 8th March, 1976. The said order was amended by corrigendum and accordingly the initial order came to be amended and the period of probation was accordingly extended from 6th March, 1976.

(e) On 7th April, 1976 a private complaint came to be filed against the petitioner by one Jadhav alleging certain misconduct against the petitioner.

(f) On the basis of certain allegations made against the petitioner with regard to his working as Judicial Officer and pursuant to the recommendations of this Court, on 1st December, 1976 the District Judge. Osmanabad, submitted his report to the Registrar, High Court.

(g) On 5th March, 1977, the petitioner's probationary period came to be further extended from 9th September 1976 for a period of 8 months.

(h) On 6th April, 1977 a show cause notice came to be issued by the respondent making certain allegations with regard to the work of the petitioner as Judicial Officer.

(q) On 22nd November, 1982 the writ petition came to be dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Division Bench of this Court. On 21st August, 1987 the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be admitted and allowed and in the circumstances the present writ petition stood admitted.

3. It is the case of the petitioner in the petition that the petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste; that pursuant to the advertisement dated 25th January, 1973 he was selected by Maharashtra Public Service Commission for the post of C.J.J.D. & J.M.F.C.; the petitioner was thereafter appointed as Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C. on the 8th February, 1974. According to the petitioner, he was deemed to be confirmed on expiry of two years or on 6th March, 1977 or at the highest from 9th May, 1977 when the last extension for probationary period came to an end. According to the petitioner, in the year 1975 in the course of his duties at Ausa the petitioner convicted one advocate by name Chandrakant Bhosale and 21 others in Criminal Case No. 189 of 1975 which judgment was pronounced by the petitioner on 28th May, 1976 and on the same day when he was sitting in the house with professor Wavare, certain advocates, whose names are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition, came to the residence of the petitioner and insisted for interim bail. According to the petitioner, he was threatened by the said persons and the petitioner brought the said fact to the notice of the District Judge, Osmanabad. According to the petitioner, due to the said incident tension grow against him as he belonged to the Scheduled Caste and the advocates named in paragraph 3 of the petition were caste Hindus. The petitioner has also referred to certain complaints against him by anonymous letters which were received by the President of the Nanded Bar Association in which certain allegations of corruption were made against the petitioner. By the said petition, the petitioner has further alleged that while he was working at Ausa due to the incident of conviction of certain caste Hindus, Complaints were made against him by advocate Hashmi. It is further the case of the petitioner that while he was discharging his duties as Judicial Officer certain persons were antagonistic towards him and on the basis of their complaints certain action was sought to be taken against him. The petitioner further states in the petition that the learned District Judge, Osmanabad Shri N.V. Saswadkar made enquiry and recorded statements of various persons who had been convicted by him as also the statements of Saravashri Musande, Hashmi, Deshpande, Taklikar etc. who had come to his residence for interim bail and had threatened him to the certain consequences. According to the petitioner, the District Judge, Osmanabad had recorded ex parte statements behind his back and the said statements were based on hear-say evidence. According to the petitioner, the District judge, osmanabad had submitted report on the basis of the said ex parte statements to the Registrar, High Court by his confidential letter dated 1st December, 1976 and on the basis of the said report a show-cause notice referred to hereinabove was given to him by the respondent on 6th April, 1977. According to the petitioner, the said show cause notice contained nine allegations relating to the non-payment of full purchase price of articles purchased by him, non-payment of loans, borrowing moneys from the advocates, demanding bribes, giving threats to the members of the Bar and ill-treating medical officers appearing before him as witnesses. According to the petitioner, he denied all allegations made in the said show cause notice dated 6th April, 1977. According to the petitioner, he was sought to be victimised both by the members of the Bar who at the relevant time has passed resolution boycotting his Court as he was member of the Scheduled Caste and that he was being victimised by the caste Hindus. According to the petitioner the enquiry made by the District Judge, Osmanabad Shri N.V. Saswadkar was ex parte enquiry. The petitioner in the said petition also admitted that a private complaint was filed on 7th April, 1976 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lature in which he was made accused No. 6 By his reply to the show cause notice, he had admitted the existence of the said complaint dated 7th April, 1976 but according to the petitioner the said private complaint ultimately was not proceeded with because the Government did not sanction the prosecution against him. According to the petitioner, the District Judge, Osmanabad ought not to have recorded the statement of the persons concerned behind his back and that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examination the said persons who had made the said allegations. According to the petitioner, the enquiry made by the District Judge, Osmanabad was ex parte enquiry and the letters written by the petitioner to the District Judge, Osmanabad were not considered. According to the petitioner, without holding any enquiry behind the back of the petitioner and without giving to him any chance to cross-examine the persons who had made statements against him he was served with the order of termination on 1st August, 1980. According to the petitioner, he was a permanent civil servant of the respondent because he became permanent automatically on the expiry of two years from the date of the appointment or in any event on 6th March, 1977 or in any event on 9th May, 1977 after the last extension of probationary period came to an end. The petitioner further submitted that he became permanent, in any event by reason of the resolution of the Government of Maharashtra dated 9th September, 1975 and also in view of the record of service which contained remark 'Good', which was communicated to the petitioner by the then District and Sessions Judge, Osmanabad by his memo dated 21st June, 1976. According to the petitioner, therefore, he fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the said Government Resolution dated 9th September, 1975. In the petition, the petitioner submitted that even assuming that he was not a permanent servant and that he was a probatitioner, even then, according to him, the order of termination amounted to dismissal from service because the said order was passed on the basis of misconduct and the said order was passed after an ex parte enquiry came to be held against him on the allegations of the gross misconduct. According to the petitioner, the said impugned order of termination was clearly in violation of Article. 311(2) of the Constitution of India as also the provisions of the Bombay Civil Services (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1932 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Old Civil Services Rules) as also in violation of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Disciplinary Rules). According to the petitioner, since the allegations of gross misconduct were made against him, the respondent was under statutory obligations to follow the Disciplinary Rules of 1979 which came into force on 12th July, 1979 and as he was not served with the charge-sheet as required under the said Rules of 1979 and as he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, who had given statements against him and nor was he allowed to lead evidence, the order of termination in substance was an order of dismissal based and founded on grounds of misconduct and since the order of termination was an order of dismissal and not simple discharge it violated the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India as also the provisions of the Disciplinary Rules of 1979. In the circumstances, the petitioner prayed in the writ petition that the above order dated 1st August, 1980 and 28th June, 1982 terminating the services of the petitioner be set aside and/or quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(6) The learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Maurya v. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation, . In the said case the appellant joined the service as Commercial Officer on promotion and his appointment was on probation for one year against a regular vacancy with a condition that his probationary period may be extended further. By order dated 2nd October, 1981 the probationary period of the appellant was extended for more one year till 4th September, 1982. However, no further order extending the probationary period or confirming him was issued on 4th September, 1982. In the circumstances, the appellant was reverted to the original post of Office Superintendent which came to be challenged by the appellant in the High Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court rejected the claim of confirmation and in the circumstances, appeal was filed in the Supreme Court. The main contention which found favour with the Supreme Court was that under Regulations 17 and 18 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1975 it was provided that the appointment against a regular vacancy is to be made on probation for one year and this period can be extended for one year more. It was found by the Supreme Court that Regulation 17 read with proviso restricted the power of the appointing authority in extending the period of probation beyond one year. It was found by the Supreme Court that the employee appointed against regular vacancy cannot be placed on probation for a period more than two years under Regulation No. 17 and if during the period of probation the appointing authority is of the opinion that the employee has not made use of opportunity afforded to him, he may be discharged, but the appointing authority cannot extend the period beyond two years. In the present case as mentioned hereinabove there is no such restriction as is provided in Regulation 17 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. Secondly, on bare reading of the above Rule 4(4)(iv) of the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956, it is clear that no such restriction is laid down. Thirdly, as mentioned hereinabove, similar rules applicable to Civil Judges, Junior Division have been interpreted by the Supreme Court in various decisions cited above which have held that there is no such restriction on the power of the Government under the above rule. In the circumstances, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Om Prakash (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case.