RAJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 823 · Decided: 10-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 3 S.C.R. 823 
RAJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 
V. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2419 Of 2011) 
MARCH 10, 2011 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW· 
Judicial Officer - Probationer Munsif - Discharged from 
seNice - Held: A person is placed on probation so as to 
enable the employer to adjudge his suitability for continuation 
and confirmation in the service - While taking a decision in 
A 
B 
c 
this regard neither any notice is required to be given to the 
D 
Probationer nor is he required to be given any opportunity of 
hearing - In the instant case, the order of termination was a 
fall out of the unsatisfactory service of the incumbent adjudged 
on the basis of his overall performance and the manner in 
which he conducted himself - This is a case of termination 
E 
of service simp/iciter and not a case of stigmatic termination 1 
- Natural Justice. 
A complaint was made against the appellant, a, 
Probationer Munsif, that while functioning as Judicial 
Magistrate I Class, he discharged all the accused in a 
F 
case involving offences punishable u/ss 406, 408, 420, 
and 120-B IPC despite rejection of revision application by 
High Court earlier. The matter was referred to the 
Standing Committee of the High Court and was, 
ultimately, considered by the Full Court, which resolved 
G 
that continuation of the service of the appellant was no 
longer required and that he should be discharged. 
Consequently, the State Government issued order stating 
that the services of the appellant were no longer required 
823 
H 
824 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 3 S.C.R. 
A in public interest and, therefore, he stood discharged with 
effect from 31-7-2003. The writ petition of the appellant 
was dismissed by the High Court. 
In the instant appeal it was contended for the 
8 appellant that the order challenged, being an order of 
removal passed without holding an inquiry, was not only 
in violation of principle of natural justice but it also 
amounted to casting a stigma on the career of the 
appellant and, as such, the order passed by the High 
Court was liable to be set aside. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A person is placed on probation so as to 
enable the employer to adjudge his suitability for 
0 continuation in the service and also for confirmation in 
service. There are various criteria for adjudging suitability 
of a person to hold the post on permanent basis and by 
way of confirmation. At that stage and during the period 
of probation the action and activities of the probationer 
E are generally under scrutiny and on the basis of his 
overall performance a decision is generally taken as to 
whether his services should be continued and that he 
should be confirmed, or he should be released from 
service. [Para 1 O] [828-B-D] 
F 
1.2. In the instant case, the order of termination of 
services of the appellant is a fall out of his unsatisfactory 
service adjudged on the basis of his overall performance 
and the manner in which he conducted himself. In the 
course of adjudging such suitability it was found by the 
G respondents that the performance of the appellant was 
not satisfactory and, therefore, he was not suitable for the 
job. The decision to release him from service was taken 
by the respondents considering his overall performance, 
conduct and suitability for the job. While taking a 
H 
RAJESH KUMAR SRIY,~9TAVA v. STATE OF 
825 
JHARKHAND 
decision in this regard neither any notice is required to 
A 
be given to the probationer nor is he required to be given 
any opportunity of hearing. Strictly speaking, it is not a 
case of removal on grounds of indiscipline or 
misconduct as sought to be made out by the appellant. 
Such decision cannot be said to be stigmatic or punitive. 
B 
This is a case of termination of service simpliciter and not 
a case of stigmatic termination and, therefore, there is no 
infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by 
the High Court. [Para 10 and 12) [828-D-G; 829-A-D] 
Rajesh Kohli vs. High Court of J & K & Anr. 2010 (11) 
C 
SCR 699 = (2010) 12 sec 783: 2010 (10) JT 276 - relied 
on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2010 (11) SCR699 
relied on 
Para 11 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2419 of 2011. 
D 
From the Judgment & Order dated 4.4.2008 of the High 
E 
-Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (S) No. 5213 of 2003. 
S.R. Singh, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj Dayal, Sahdev Singh 
for the Appellant. 
Ratan Kumar Chaudhuri, A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.