I
IN THE HIGR COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 18*" day of November 2010
PRESENT
THE HONELE lViR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF Jig~sTfIjoE__f A'
AND
THE I~1oN'ELE
WA No.34?/2o1oA:(s--EE.s) E
BETWEEN: * " " '
l. Rarnsingh
8/ O Lalsingh
Age:36 _ - --
Oec: Process Serve '(Dis:;:hat.rged--1_'~.,t _
R/IS1PI3e Lmganna' Randy... "
Opp. Europ Tailors " v
Mudugalkai"--Building} ' Q -
Koppal ,£*iop_::iai Dis_tri::t~.V A V
= ' p v . Appellant
(By Srnt; Siislhelelal,*g;{';dv';'for 'sf: Vighneshwar S Shastri, Adv.)
AND: V V 4' V l
1. The District Judge
Davanagere ' - "
. «Davanagere "I'_),1'_S__1_"._1_'ji4F,'l"..
_V'1/he *CiV*i,A:1dJ1,1'dg§ (Jr.Dn.} <31
' -fihariziaigiri.
. . L' ' Respondents
% ~ .. '. pl ' n.(By Sri'B",l 'Veerappa, AGA]
«This writ appeal is filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High
Ccgurt Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ
' Petition No.8l54/200"/'{S--RES) dated 02/07/2007.
This Writ Appeal coming on for Orders this day, Chief
Justice delivered the following :
'WWW
2
JUDGMENT
J.S.KHEHAR. C.J. (Oral) :
Sri.B.Veerappa, learned Additional,V_uC.iQv’ern.men’t..,,
Advocate for respondents.
2. Keeping in mind
in the application for-‘ r;ondoin’ati.onlV””0f._ tlelayjaslj also the
affidavit filed by the we are
of the view, writ appeal
deserves to” the delay is
condojjedlland. is allowed.
3. T’l1e”appellant’ selected as a process server.
ent{‘yit..,,muto,.sewice, he was placed under
»p1fobati.oi1. ‘el-lfaV_ing evaluated his work and conduct, the
Civil Jud’ge,,’.1′ Junior Division, Channagiri, by a
‘.Vcomrnulni_cation dated 06.10.2006 recommended, that
0’ lffthvellservices of the appellant be confirmed. Despite the
aforesaid, by an order dated 14.02.2007, the probation
of the appellant was not cleared, in as much as, the
appellant was relieved from service.
Cl”
4
6. Relying on Sub~Rule [2] of Rule 6, it is the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant,
that the order dated 14.02.2007 deserves t’o..Vl_bei~.Vset
aside, on account of the fact, that it did
grounds for the appellant’s _»g:1ischai’ge.”~–~:i:t”
submission of the learned counseI_l’=for’th’e
that in terms of the mailidatie of”~Rule_ lk3{A2l’}._j’extracted”.l’
herein–above, it is imperativ.e—- tov–in’dicate” the grounds of
discharge in the olrderv” services of a
probationei=.a1*e5:to be di4s’pe*n.sed
7″,.’lnspitelof”thte._afore.said submission advanced at
the of thellaplpellant, learned counsel for the
V’ ., appellantpllas our attention to an affidavit dated
ll *w,.\:?l«ll_:.1lCl’l has been filed in this Court, wherein
the1_appelllalf1tl.has interalia undertaken as under:–
“1′}V_.l*i’hat in case the appellant is reinstated into
he shall forego all his backwages.
ii] That on his reinstatement. the appellant shall
re–comrnence his employment as a probationer, in terms
of the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Service
[Probation] Rules, 1977
Umgamfiu
5
8. We have considered the solitary contention
advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the
appellant, as has been noticed in the foregoing
paragraphs. We are satisfied, that
contained in Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka
(Probation) Rules, 1977, is clearfanlunarnbiguou_s,_finals.
much as, before the services of aKpr’obation”er’ are to'”‘ne’v,
dispensed with, it is g for” to
inform him, the grounds indicating
the same in the orderwoif Thus viewed,
since it is of discharge of
the in the order dated
14.o2.:,2oQ~r]ere.fee,rie,r1ed, that the said order
deserves. to ‘be. aside being violative of Rule 6(2) of
,the,l Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1977.
‘Ordered aCcor.ding1y.
* 9;” In View of the aforesaid, it is necessary to
.’ that consequent upon the disposal of the instant
appeal, the appellant shall stand reinstated into
service, forthwith. On his reinstatement, he shall not be
entitled to any backwages. His emoluments shall
commence from the minimum of the scale. On his
6
reinstatement, he shall remain on probation, in terms of
the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Service [Probation},:. “»a.
Rules, 1977.
10. The instant wn’t appeal is
aforesaid terms.
UDQEES
Kwgnni
‘ mv*
Index: Y/N