H.F. SANGATI versus R.G. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 83 · Decided: 23-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
H.F. SANGATI 
v. 
R.G. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 23, 2001 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., R.C. LAHOTI AND 
BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Service I.aw : 
Kamataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977: Rule 6. 
Civil Serviee-Probationer-Discharge of-Principles of Natural Jus-
tice-Applicability of---Services of probationer terminated on the ground that 
he was unsuitable to hold the ;;ost-No opportunity of hearing given-Validity 
of-Held: Order of discharge is in accordance with R.6 which only requires 
indication of grounds of discharge-No formal proceedings under 1957 Rules 
required-Mor-eover, order does not cast any stigma on the probationer-
Hence, no requirement to comply with principles of naturaljustice-Kamataka 
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. 
The appellants were appointed as Munsifs on probation and they 
were discharged from service under Rule 6(1) of the Karnataka Civil 
Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 as they were unsuitable to hold the post of 
Munsifs. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appel· 
!ants. Hence this appeal. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the order of dis-
charge was not an order simplicitor; that the order cast a stigma on the 
F 
appellants inasmuch as it recorded that the appellants were unsuitable to 
hold the post of Munsif; that the appellants had not been afforded an 
opportunity of hearing before passing the order and, therefore, the order 
was vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD : 1. The impugned order does not cast any stigma on the 
,,....-
appellants. All that has been said in the impugned order is that the 
appellants were unsuitable to hold the post of Munsifs. Rule 6 of tbe 
Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 contemplates a proba-
tioner being discharged from service on one or more of the following 
H 
83 
A 
B 
c 
84 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 2 S.C.R. 
grounds: (i) in terms of a condition imposed by the Rules, (ii) in terms of 
the order of appointment, or (iii) on account of unsuitability of the 
appointee for the service or post. Rule 6(2) of the Rules requires an order 
discharging the probationer to indicate the grounds for the discharge. It 
also provides that such indicating of the grounds for the discharge in the 
order would not require any formal poceedings under the Karnataka 
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 being 
held. The impugned order of discharge has been passed in strict compli· 
ance with the requirements of Rule 6. It does not cast any stigma on the 
appellants nor is it punitive. There was, thus, no requirement to comply 
with the principles of natural justice much less to be preceded by any 
formal proceedings of enquiry before making the order. (88-D-F] 
Purushottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, (1958] SCR 828 and 
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1974) SC 2192, followed 
Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for 
D 
Basic Science, Calcutta (1999] 3 SCC 60, relied on. 
VP. Ahuja v. State of Punjab, [2000] 3 SCC 239, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1463 of2001. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13. 8.99 of the Kamat aka High Court 
in W.A. No. 3416 of 1997. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 1464 of 2001 
F 
H.F. Sangati-in-person for the Appellant. 
S.C. Paul, Ms. Kanwaljeet Kochhar, Rekha Pandey for the Appellant in 
C.A. No. 1464/2001. 
G 
N. Ganpathy, Saujay R. Hegde and Satya Mitra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.C. LAHOTI, J. Leave granted in both the S.L.Ps. 
H.F. Sangati was appointed as Munsif on probation in the Karnataka 
H 
Judicial Services vide an order dated 25.6.1991 and was posted as Munsif & 
; 
> 
-¥ -
-.... 
.... 
H.F. SANGATI v. R.G. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 
85 
JFMC w.e.f. 16.9.1991. The Administrative Committee of the High Court of 
Karnataka in its meeting dated 13.11.1995 considered the question of satisfac-
tory completion of the period of probation of the Munsifs appointed during the 
year 1991. On a review of the confidential records and the remarks based on 
assessment of their work, the Committee recorded its opinion that the perfonn-
ance of the petitioner as a judicial officer was too poor to be considered 
satisfactory for his confinnation on the post. Accordingly the Committee rec-
ommended to th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.