Case: Rajesh Kohli Vs. High Court Of J.&amp;K.

to a stigma, the order must be in a language which imputes something over and above mere unsuitability for the job." 20. In the case of Krishnadevaraya Education Trust v. L.A. Balakrishna reported in (2001) 9 SCC 319 , the services of respondent-Assistant Professor were terminated on the ground that his on the job proficiency was not upto the mark. This Court held that merely a mention in the order by the employer that the services of the employee are not found to be satisfactory would not tantamount to the order being a stigmatic one. This Court held in para 5 thus: - "5. There can be no manner of doubt that the employer is entitled to engage the services of a person on probation. During the period of probation, the suitability of the recruit/appointee has to be seen. If his services are not satisfactory which means that he is not suitable for the job, then the employer has a right to terminate the services as a reason thereof. If the termination during probationary period is without any reason, perhaps such an order would be sought to be challenged on the ground of being arbitrary. Therefore, normally services of an employee on probation would be terminated, when he is found not to be suitable for the job for which he was engaged, without assigning any reason. If the order on the face of it states that his services are being terminated because his performance is not satisfactory, the employer runs the risk of the allegation being made that the order itself casts a stigma. We do not say that such a contention will succeed. Normally, therefore, it is preferred that the order itself does not mention the reason why the services are being terminated."6. If such an order is challenged, the employer will have to indicate the grounds on which the services of a probationer were terminated. Mere fact that in response to the challenge the employer states that the services were not satisfactory would not ipso facto mean that the services of the probationer were being terminated by way of punishment. The probationer is on test and if the services are found not to be satisfactory, the employer has, in terms of the letter of appointment, the right to terminate the services." 21. In the case of Chaitanya Prakash v. H. Omkarappa reported in (2010) 2 SCC 623 , the services of respondent were terminated by the appellant company. During the period of probation, his services were not found to be satisfactory and he was also given letters for improvement of his services and his period of service was also extended and ultimately company terminated him. Court after referring to a series of cases held that the impugned order of termination of respondent is not stigmatic. 22. In the case of State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh reported in (2002) 9 SCC 636 this Court at paragraphs 4 & 5 held as follows: - "4. ............................. In our view, when a probationer is discharged during the period of probation and if for the purpose of discharge, a particular assessment of his work is to be made, and the authorities referred to such an assessment of his work, while passing the order of discharge, that cannot be held to amount to stigma.5. The other sentence in the impugned order is, that the performance of the officer on the whole was "not satisfactory". Even that does not amount to any stigma." 23. In the present case, the order of termination is a fall out of his unsatisfactory service adjudged on the basis of his overall performance and the manner in which he conducted himself. Such satisfaction even if recorded that his service is unsatisfactory would not make the order stigmatic or punitive as sought to be submitted by the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid resolution, the matter was referred to the State Government for issuing necessary orders.24. One of the issues that were raised by the petitioner was that he was granted two increments during the period of two and a half years of his service. Therefore the stand taken by the respondents that his service was unsatisfactory is belied according to the petitioner because of the aforesaid action even on the part of the respondents impliedly accepting the position that his service was satisfactory.25. The aforesaid submission of the petitioner is devoid of any merit in view of the fact that since the petitioner was continuing in service, therefore, the case for granting increment was required to be considered which was so granted. The mere granting of yearly increments would not in any manner indicate that after completion of the probation period the full court of the High Court was not competent to scrutinize his records and on the basis thereof take a decision as to whether 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. The district judiciary is the bedrock of our judicial system and is positioned at the primary level of entry to the doors of justice. In providing the opportunity of access to justice to the people of the country, the judicial officers who are entrusted with the task of adjudication must officiate in a manner that is becoming of their position and responsibility towards society.26. 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, virtue and ethics among judges. The publics perception of the judiciary matters just as much as its role in dispute resolution. The credibility of the entire judiciary is often undermined by isolated acts of transgression by a few members of the Bench, and therefore it is imperative to maintain a high benchmark of honesty, accountability and good conduct.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]12. The petitioner was temporarily appointed as District & 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 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 recommended that the services of the petitioner be dispensed with. At this stage, it may also be noted that when by the order dated 03.07.2003 the service of the petitioner was terminated, the period of probation of the petitioner was extended for the period from 24.08.2000 to 05.05.2003, the date on which a follow-up order was issued by the High Court to the State Government recommending his case for termination. Finally by the order dated 03.07.2003, the service of the petitioner was terminated.13. Since the rule permits probation to be extended for another one year and since there was no order of confirmation passed by the respondents confirming his service, the petitioner would be deemed to be continuing on probation immediately after his expiry of the initial two years of probation. In this regard, we may refer to the case of Satya Narayan Athya v. High Court of M.P. reported in (1996) 1 SCC 560  in which a judicial officer was not given any confirmation letter even after the completion of his two years of probation period. The rules in the said case provided for the extension of initial two years of probation period for a further period of two years. This Court in that case held at Paragraphs 3 & 5 that :......................A reading thereof would clearly indicate that every candidate appointed to the cadre shall undergo training initially for a period of six months before he is appointed on probation for a period of two years. On his completion of two years of probation, it may be open to the High Court either to confirm or extend the probation. At the end of the probation period, if he is not confirmed on being found unfit, it may be extended for a further period not exceeding two years. It is seen that though there is no order of extension, it must be deemed that he was continued on probation for an extended period of two years. On completion of two years, he must not be deemed to be confirmed automatically. There is no order of confirmation. Until the order is passed, he must be deemed to continue on probation.5. Under these circumstances, the High Court was justified in discharging the petitioner from service during the period of his probation. It is not necessary that there should be a charge and an enquiry on his conduct since the petitioner is only on probation and during the period of probation, it would be open to the High Court to consider whether he is suitable for confirmation or should be discharged from service.During the period of probation an employee remains under watch and his service and his conduct is under scrutiny. Around the time of completion of the probationary period, an assessment is made of his work and conduct during the period of probation and on such assessment a decision is taken as to whether or not his service is satisfactory and also whether or not on the basis of his service and track record his service should be confirmed or extended for further scrutiny of his service if such extension is permissible or whether his service should be dispensed with and terminated. The services rendered by a judicial officer during probation are assessed not solely on the basis of judicial performance, but also on the probity as to how one has conducted himself.15. The aforesaid resolution taken by the full court on its administrative side clearly indicates that the matter regarding his confirmation or otherwise or extension of his probation period for another one year was considered by the full court but since his service was not found to be satisfactory on consideration of the records, therefore, the full court decided not to confirm him in service and to dispense with his service and accordingly recommended for dispensation of his service. On the basis of the aforesaid recommendation of the High Court, an order was passed by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir dispensing with the service of the petitioner.16. These facts clearly prove and establish that the order of termination of service of the petitioner was not issued by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court but it only recommended his termination as his service was not found to be satisfactory. The aforesaid recommendation was accepted by the Government which finally ordered the termination of his service. The aforesaid order was an order of the competent authority and issued by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir. Since the said order was issued by the competent authority, it was a valid order and should be treated as such, although it was specifically not issued in the name of the Governor.In the present case, the order of termination is a fall out of his unsatisfactory service adjudged on the basis of his overall performance and the manner in which he conducted himself. Such satisfaction even if recorded that his service is unsatisfactory would not make the order stigmatic or punitive as sought to be submitted by the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid resolution, the matter was referred to the State Government for issuing necessary orders.24. One of the issues that were raised by the petitioner was that he was granted two increments during the period of two and a half years of his service. Therefore the stand taken by the respondents that his service was unsatisfactory is belied according to the petitioner because of the aforesaid action even on the part of the respondents impliedly accepting the position that his service was satisfactory.25. The aforesaid submission of the petitioner is devoid of any merit in view of the fact that since the petitioner was continuing in service, therefore, the case for granting increment was required to be considered which was so granted. The mere granting of yearly increments would not in any manner indicate that after completion of the probation period the full court of the High Court was not competent to scrutinize his records and on the basis thereof take a decision as to whether 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. The district judiciary is the bedrock of our judicial system and is positioned at the primary level of entry to the doors of justice. In providing the opportunity of access to justice to the people of the country, the judicial officers who are entrusted with the task of adjudication must officiate in a manner that is becoming of their position and responsibility towards society.26. 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, virtue and ethics among judges. The publics perception of the judiciary matters just as much as its role in dispute resolution. The credibility of the entire judiciary is often undermined by isolated acts of transgression by a few members of the Bench, and therefore it is imperative to maintain a high benchmark of honesty, accountability and good conduct