2004 (11) TMI 587 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Termination for Poor Performance and Integrity

Registrar, High Court of Gujarat & Anr. Versus C.G. Sharma

The Supreme Court dismissed Mr. C.G. Sharma's appeal and upheld the termination by the High Court of Gujarat, ruling that there is no automatic ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1961 regarding the power of the Government to extend the period of probation.2. Whether Mr. C.G. Sharma was deemed to have been confirmed after the expiry of the probation period.3. Alleged discriminatory treatment and pick and choose approach in confirming other officers.4. Adequacy of disposal of cases and overall performance assessment of Mr. C.G. Sharma.5. Whether the termination order was punitive and stigmatic, thus requiring a departmental enquiry.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules:The core issue was the interpretation of sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1961, which states that a person on probation may be confirmed if there is a vacancy and his work is found satisfactory. The Supreme Court held that the rule does not provide for automatic confirmation after the expiry of the probation period. The confirmation is contingent upon a vacancy and satisfactory performance, thus ruling out deemed confirmation.2. Deemed Confirmation:The respondent, Mr. C.G. Sharma, contended that he was automatically confirmed after the two-year probation period. The Division Bench of the High Court initially found no basis for automatic confirmation, agreeing with the learned single Judge. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that automatic confirmation cannot be claimed as a matter of right because satisfactory work is a prerequisite for confirmation. The rule does not specify a maximum probation period, allowing for extensions if necessary.3. Discriminatory Treatment and Pick and Choose Approach:Mr. C.G. Sharma argued that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment as other officers with similar or worse performance were confirmed. The Division Bench agreed with this contention, noting that the respondent's performance was assessed as very good or adequate for most quarters. However, the Supreme Court found that each officer's case was evaluated on its own merits and that the overall performance and integrity of Mr. C.G. Sharma were questionable. Therefore, the claim of discriminatory treatment was rejected.4. Adequacy of Disposal of Cases and Overall Performance:The Division Bench found that the termination was arbitrary, as the respondent's performance was not assessed as inadequate or poor for most quarters. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the overall performance, including integrity and conduct, was considered unsatisfactory. The confidential reports and vigilance investigations indicated that the respondent was not industrious, had suspicious conduct, and lacked judicial aloofness. The Supreme Court concluded that such an officer should not continue in service for the sake of judicial administration.5. Punitive and Stigmatic Termination:Mr. C.G. Sharma contended that the termination was punitive and stigmatic, requiring a departmental enquiry. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the termination was a simple order of termination due to unsuitability during the probation period. The Court reiterated that a probationer does not have a right to hold the post and can be terminated if found unsuitable. The termination was based on overall performance and not on any specific misconduct that would require a formal enquiry.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Registrar of the High Court of Gujarat and the State of Gujarat, dismissing the appeal filed by Mr. C.G. Sharma. The Court upheld the view that there is no automatic confirmation after the probation period and that the termination was justified based on the overall unsatisfactory performance and questionable integrity of Mr. C.G. Sharma. The termination was not found to be punitive or stigmatic, and thus did not require a departmental enquiry.