Judgment:
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.
1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the orders dated 4th February, 1981 and 30th January, 1984. Annexure 5 and 4 respectively.
2. The petitioner, who was recruited as a probationer under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 (here-in-after referred as the Rules of 1955), and was appointed as a Munsif Magistrate on probation for two years. During the period of probation he has not sufficiently utilised his opportunties therefore, the petitioner was discharged from service vide Annexure-5 dated 4th February, 1984. He was also informed vide Annexure-4 by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court that his period of probation will not be extended beyond 31st January, 1984. Both these orders have been challenged by the petitioner by filing this writ petition. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit submitting that the petitioner moved the High Court for issuing his character certificate, but no such certificate was issued.
3. A return has been filed by the respondent No. 2 and it has been submitted that the petitioner's service have teen discharged at the end of his probation because he has failed to utilise opportunities, and he has also otherwise failed to give satisfaction. Thus, the High Court recommended that the services of petitioner may be dispensed with. The order of termination is simpliciter without casting any expersion on the petitioner. The petitioner's services are not sought to be dispensed with on account of any misconduct or on account of corruption. It has been further submitted that the order is not passed on any alleged exparte enquiry said to be conducted by the District Judge, Alwar. It has been further submitted that the special report was called of the work of the petitioner from the District Judges under whom the petitioner worked during the probation period, that report was considered for adjudging the suitability of the petitioner in terms of Rule 24 of the Rules of 1955.There-after the matter was placed before the Full Court and accordingly on the recommendation of the High Court services of the petitioner have been dispensed with by the Governor. It has been further submitted that simultaneously one Bhawani Shanker Sharma was also appointed on probation and his services have also been dispensed with effect from 10th July, 1984.
4. The petitioner moved an application for calling the record for perusal of the court in order to satisfy that whether the petitioner's service have been dispensed with on bonafide application of mind or on account of some enquiry or some complaint.
5. Mr. Shishodia learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order terminating the services of the petitioner is bad for the reason that no satisfaction of the Governor has been recorded in the order Ex. 5 dated 4th Februuy, 1984. Secondly he submitted that the order discharging services of the petitioner on probation is founded on the mis-conduct, therefore, such order is bad and in support of this proposition he has cited the cases of Nepal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. : (1986)IILLJ343SC , Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India : (1984)ILLJ337SC , Inderpal Gupta v. The Managing Committee, Model Inter College and Ors. : [1984]3SCR752 , Union of India v. S.B. Chatterjee 1980 RLW 188, K.S. Joshi v. Union of India : (1985)IILLJ416SC . He has further argued that the petitioner has been denied the character certificate, therefore, the casts a stigma. Lastly he has submitted that on account of the so called enquiry by the District Judge, which has been made the foundation of the petitioner's discharge. As against this Mr. Mehta learned Counsel for the respondent High Court submits that the petitioner has no legal right, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that no foundation has been laid down to infer any stigma. In support of this proposition he has cited before me the cases of State of U.P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi 1976 (2) SLR 859, Ram Charan Goel v. State of Rajasthan 1977 ASLJ 601 Bishan Lal Gupta v. State of Haryana : (1978)ILLJ316SC and Commodore Commanding, Southern Naval Area, Cochin v. V.N. Rajan AIR 1981 SC 963.
6. I have heard both the learned Counsel at length and I am of the view that this writ petition does not warrant any interference. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed on probation under the Rules of 1955. Since the petitioner did not make sufficient use of his opportunities and fail to give satisfaction, therefore, his services have been discharged.
7. So far as first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, same is not tenable in terms of Rule 24 of the Rules of 1955, where in it has been clearly mentioned that if the Governor is satisfied that the petitioner has not made sufficient use of his opportunities and he has failed to give satisfaction then his service can be dispensed with. As per the return filed by the respondent High Court, it is clear that the High Court was satisfied that the petitioner has failed to give satisfaction in the discharge of his duties therefore the matter was considered by the Full Court and accordingly same was recommended to the Governor. The Governor on the basis of the reccommendation dispensed with the services of the petitioner after satisfying that the petitioner has not made sufficient use of his opportunities and he has failed to give satisfaction. Thus, it is futile to contend that there is no material to show that the Governor was satisfied in the matter or not. It has clearly mentioned in the last para of the order Annexure-5 that in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 24 of the Rules of 1955 Governor has dispensed with the service of the petitioner as per the recommendations sent by the High Court in this regard. Last para of the order Annexure-5 reads as under :
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of rule 24 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955, the Governor of the State of Rajasthan for reasons mentioned above, hereby dispenes with the services of said Shri Shivcharan Gupta, Munsif- cum-Judicial Magistrate, Jalore with immediate effect.
Thus, when the High Court was satisfied that the petitioner has failed to give satisfaction and the same has recommended to the Governor, the Governor accepted the recommendation of the High Court and there is no reason to take a contrary view of the matter. Thus, the first submission of the learned Counsel has no merit and it is rejected.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the discharge of the petitioner from service has been made is on the basis of the report of the District Judge Alwar on account of some complaint, therefore the order of discharge is based on the basis of so called enquiry conducted against him by the District Judge Alwar. Mr. Shishodia also moved an application for summonning the record and I accordingly summoned the record from the High Court and perused the report of the District Judge, Alwar as well as District Judge, Jalore and the minutes of the Full Court which recommended the petitioner's discharge. A perusal of the same would show that no mention has been made regarding any such enquiry either in the report of District Judge, Jalore or District Judge, Alwar. Both the reports, one from District Judge, Alwar as well as from the District Judge, Jalore were placed before the Full Court and the Full Court after perusing the same were satisfied that the petitioner has failed to utilise opportunities given to him and has also failed to give satisfaction, Thus, the argument that the report of the District Judge, Alwar regarding the incident of the FIR No. 24/82 of the Police Station Malakheda was not used as the motive to dispense with the services of the petitioner is not correct. Thus, in this view of the matter I think the discharge of the petitioner was bonafide and without any basis of the so called complaint as alleged by the petitioner.
9. So far as the cases cited by Mr. Shishodia which lays down the proposition that the courts can alway go beyond the simpliciter order of termination or the discharge and can certainly find out the motive of such discharge if the motive which is the foundation of the discharge casts any stigma, then certainly in the cloack of simpliciter order of termination of services incumbent cannot be discharged, but the same is not the question here. The apprehension of the petitioner that the report of the District Judge regarding FIR No. 24/82 was made the foundation for discharging the services of the petitioner is not correct. Thus, I do not find any merit in this contention also.
10. The learned Counsel has further submitted that since he was not issued the charcter certifificate, therefore, this casts a stigma. This contention is also devoid of any merit. Since the petitioner's services were discharged it was not necessary for the employer to grant him any certificate. There is no provision in the Rules, which casts a duty on the respondent to give certificate of character to the incumbent who has been discharged from service. Thus, this contention is also devoid of merit.
11. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed without any order as to costs.