Pramod Kumar M. K vs Registrar, Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, 7th Floor, Kandaya Bhavan, Kempegowda Road, Bengaluru 560009 & Others

G Basavaraja, J

The petitioner in this petition is assailing the order dated 24th April 2024 passed in Application No.1482 of 2019 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal").

Facts leading to this writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as Watchman in the Tribunal vide order dated 29th January 2016. He was placed on probation for a period of two years in terms of Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977. By order dated 27th January 2018, the probationary period of the petitioner was extended for one more year on the ground that his work was not satisfactory. While so working, the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice stating that he had remained absent for night watchman duty on 29th and 30th July 2018 without prior permission. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice stating that on 29th July 2018 on an oral direction he agreed to discharge the duties of night watchman, but due to his ill-health with breathing problem that developed on the evening of 29th July 2018, he could not attend to duty of night watchman between 29th and 30th July 2018. He had no intention of disobeying the orders of his superiors and for the unforeseen reasons, he had to remain absent on the aforesaid dates. It is further stated that the petitioner had informed about his serious illness immediately to the Registrar orally on 30th July 2018. The Chairman of the Tribunal, without accepting the reply made by the petitioner to the show cause notice and on the basis of allegations that the petitioner had remained absent unauthorisedly, discharged the petitioner from service by order dated 6th August 2018. The Review petition filed by the petitioner against the said order came to be rejected by order dated 23rd October 2018 mentioning that the petitioner was discharged from services due to his rude behaviour, insubordination and disobedience attitude. It is also stated in the order that the order of discharge is a "discharge simplicitor". Thereafter, the petitioner filed Application No.1482 of 2019 before the Tribunal. Respondents filed reply statement to the Application. The Tribunal, by order dated 24th April 2024, dismissed the Application. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of Application, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order impugned passed by the Tribunal.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

Smt. Saritha A.L., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is opposed to law, facts and evidence on record. The order terminating the services of the petitioner contain that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory and his conduct and behaviour was also not satisfactory. Therefore, the said order cannot be discharge simplicitor. The respondent has issued show cause notice calling for explanation from the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he actually developed breathing problem on the evening of 29th July 2018, and due to the reason beyond his control, he could not attend the duty as Watchman on 29th and 30th July 2018, and the said act was not with an intention to disobey the orders of superiors. After this reply was made, the order of discharge was passed without hearing the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry after duly serving notice to the petitioner. There ought to have been an enquiry to find out whether the petitioner was prevented from attending the duty as agreed to by him orally due to reason beyond his control or was it to deliberately disobey the order of higher officers. Unless that is not found and a finding is recorded to that effect, it was not permissible to the respondent to discharge the services of the petitioner. Thus the order of discharge was punitive in nature, so also carry stigma. The order passed by the Tribunal without hearing and conducting enquiry, was opposed to principles of natural justice and is also one without application of mind and a colourable exercise of power. On all these grounds that the learned Counsel sought to allow the petition. To substantiate her arguments, she has relied on the following decisions:

ANOOP JAISWAL v. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1984 SC 636;

DIPTI PRAKASH BANERJEE v. SATENDRA NATH BOSE, NATIONAL CENTRAL FOR BASIC SCIENCE, CALCUTTA AND OTHERS - 1999(3) SCC 60;

PALAK MODHI v. STATE BANK OF INDIA 2011 SCC ONLINE ALL 1846;

ABHAY JAIN v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN 2022(13) SCC 1;

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. PALAK MODI AND OTHERS - 2013(3) SCC 607;

NEHRU YUVA KENDRA SANGHATAN V. MEHBUB ALAM LASKAR - 2008(2) SCC 479;

SMT. VANDANA GOURAJ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - APPLICATION NO.386 OF 2023 DECIDED ON 25.09.2023

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would support the order passed by the Tribunal and sought for dismissal of writ petition.

We have examined the material placed before the Court. A perusal of the same makes it clear that the petitioner was appointed as Watchman by the first respondent vide per order dated 27th January 2016 and was placed on probation for a period of two years as provided under Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1977. Subsequently, by order dated 27th January 2018, probationary period of the petitioner was extended by an year on the ground that the conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory. An opportunity was provided to the petitioner with a view to improve the probation. However, the petitioner has not shown any improvement in the period of probation. On the contrary, the petitioner remained absent for duty on 29th and 30th July 2018. In this regard, a show-cause notice was also issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted his explanation. But same was not considered by the employer and the petitioner was discharged from service stating that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory even after extending the period of probation and the petitioner was not entitled to hold the post. After passing the said order, the petitioner filed review petition before the Chairman of the Tribunal. The review petition came to be rejected by order dated 23rd October 2018. In the review order, it is observed that the order of discharge is a "discharge simplicitor" as the misconduct is not reflected in the order. By relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal has rightly observed that purpose of placing a person on probation is to train him during the probationary period, so also, to assess his suitability for appointment. The Registrar of the Tribunal extended the period of probation of the petitioner by one year as services of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not show any improvement. The show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner as he remained absent for duty without intimation or without the consent of authorities, for which the petitioner has submitted his explanation. The petitioner was discharged from service vide order dated 06th August, 2018.

On examination/consideration of material placed before the court, we do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also been considered by the Tribunal while passing the detailed order. Further, the Tribunal has also observed that the order passed by the first respondent is not a punitive order as the same is passed discharging a probationer. The same is also affirmed by the Chairman of the Tribunal in Review Petition by Order dated 23rd October 2018.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIRECTOR ARYABHATTA RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCES AND ANOTHER v. DEVENDRA JOSHI AND OTHERS reported in (2018)3 SLR 125 (SC) has observed that where in the order of termination a probationer is not founded on misconduct, then the same cannot be considered as stigma. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the instant case is a termination of probationer as a termination on allegation of misconduct. It is an admitted fact that the initial period of probation was not found to be satisfactory and the probation was extended. During the extended period also, the services of the employee was not found satisfactory. A reading of the order would show that it is a termination simplicitor and does not cast any stigma on the petitioner. Following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the order of termination of the petitioner is simplicitor in nature, we are of the view that the decision taken by the respondent No.2 herein, is justified in passing the impugned order dated 24th April, 2024. In the result, writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.