LexRAJESH KOHLI versus HIGH COURT OF J & K AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 699 RAJESH KOHLI V. HIGH COURT OF J & K AND ANR. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 95 of 2004) SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] A B Service law: Judicial service - Higher Judicial service - Termination of service of probationary judicial officer - C Challenged on the ground that the order of termination was stigmatic - Held: Reference in the order that service of the judicial officer was unsatisfactory do not amount to stigma nor does it amount to casting any aspersion on him - The order of termination was a fall out of his unsatisfactory service D adjudged on the basis of his overall performance and the manner in which he conducted himself - Mere grant of yearly increments would not in any manner indicate that after completion of the probation period, the High Court (administrative side) was not competent to scrutinize his records and on the basis thereof take a decision as to whether E or not his service should be confirmed or dispensed with or whether his probation period should be extended - The High Court has a solemn duty to consider and appreciate the service of a judicial officer before confirming him in service F - The District Judiciary is the bedrock of Indian judicial system and is positioned at the primary level of entry to the doors of justice - Upright and honest judicial officers are needed not only to bolster the image of the judiciary in the eyes of litigants, but also to sustain the culture of integrity, G virtue and ethics among judges - Jammu & Kashmir Higher Judicial Service Rules - Rule 15 - Administrative law - Administrative authority - Judiciary. The writ petitioner was appointed as a judicial officer 699 H 700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 11 S.C.R. A on temporary basis. During probation period of two years, certain c.riminal complaints were made against him and the matters were recorded in his personal records. After completion of the initial two years of his probationary period, his records and his case were B placed before the Full Court of the High Court for consideration of -his case for confirmation or extension of period of probation or otherwise. The Full Court resolved that the service of the petitioner was not satisfactory and thus the probation was not extended. C The resolution of the Full Court meeting and the recommendation were forwarded to the State Government and the State Government passed an order dispensing with the service of the petitioner. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner challenged D the order of the High Court recommending the termination of the service of the petitioner and also against the order of the State government dispensing with the service of the petitioner. E Dismissing ttie writ petition, the Court HELD: 1. Rule 15 of the Jammu & Kashmir Higher Judicial Service Rules permitted an officer to be kept on probation ordinarily for a period of at least three years. The petitioner was temporarily appointed as District & F Sessions Judge on 24.08.2000 and therefore completed his initial period of probation of two years on 23.08.2002. Thereafter his matter was placed on the administrative side before the Full Court of the High Court in its meeting held on 26.04.2003 for the purpose of confirmation of his G service or otherwise or for extension of probationary period. The Full Court on consideration of the records of the petitioner held that his service was not found to be satisfactory and therefore, his probation period would not be extended and accordingly the Full Court H RAJESH KOHLI v. HIGH COURT OF J & KAND ANR. 701 recommended that the services of the petitionei: be A dispensed with. [Paras 11, 12, 14] [708-C-F] Satya Narayan Athya v. High Court of M.P. (1996) 1 SCC 560 - referred to. 2. The order of termination of service of the petitioner was not issued by the High Court but it only recommended his termination as his service was not found to be satisfactory. The said recommendation was accepted by the Government which finally ordered the · termination of his service,' The said order was an order C of the competent authority and issued by the State Government and, therefore, it was a valid order and should be treated as such, although it was specifically not issued in the name of the Governor. [Para 16] [710-F- G] B D 3. The services rendered by a judicial officer during probation are assessed on the basis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.