Probationary confirmation and discharge standards: no automatic confirmation, and discharge during probation was valid without formal enquiry.

A judicial officer on probation was not deemed confirmed merely because the probationary period expired; confirmation depended on an express order and the prescribed fitness requirements under the service rules. In the absence of such confirmation, the officer continued as a probationer and remained liable to suitability assessment. Applying that principle, the Court held that unsatisfactory performance during the relevant period justified discharge from service, and no charge-sheet or formal enquiry was required while the officer remained on probation. The discharge was therefore valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether a judicial officer on probation could be deemed to have been confirmed on completion of the probationary period, and whether discharge from service during probation was justified without a charge or enquiry.

Analysis: Rule 24(1) of the M.P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Condition of Services) Rules, 1955 contemplated an initial training period followed by probation for two years, with confirmation depending upon fitness for confirmation and prescribed examinations. The absence of an express order extending probation did not result in automatic confirmation. In the absence of an order of confirmation, the officer continued to remain on probation and could be assessed for suitability. On the facts found by the High Court, the officer's performance during the relevant period was not satisfactory, and the later record did not alter that assessment. Since the officer remained a probationer, the High Court was entitled to discharge him from service under Rule 52(a) of the M.P. Government Service (Temporary, Quasi-permanent Service) Rules, 1960 without initiating a charge-sheet or formal enquiry.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not deemed to have been confirmed, and his discharge from service during probation was valid.

---