P.M. Mahadevappa vs The Divisional Commissioner and The Deputy Commissioner

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No. 3094/1998, dated 22.6.2009, is called in question in this writ petition. The records reveal that the petitioner''s father Mr. Madaiah expired while in service. Petitioner being the son of late Madaiah, sought appointment on compassionate grounds. He was appointed on probation as Second Division Clerk on 26.12.1986. However, the probationary period of the petitioner was extended from time to time, inasmuch as he did not pass the departmental examinations. In the meanwhile, it was disclosed that the petitioner had furnished false information relating to his date of birth while entering into service. A show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 18.12.1997 calling for his explanation. On 16.4.1998, the petitioner was discharged from service under the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977. The said order of discharge was questioned before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 3904/1998, which came to be dismissed on 14.9.1998 since the petitioner failed to appear before the Tribunal. Questioning the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 8990/2000. This Court disposed of the said writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a review application before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioner presented Review Application No. 7/2001 before the Tribunal which came to be allowed on 19.12.2005. As a consequence thereof, main application, i.e., Application No. 3905/1998 was restored to the file of the Tribunal which again came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 22.6.2009 by the Tribunal, on merits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while deciding Review Application No. 7/2001, the Tribunal has held that the order of discharge passed against the petitioner is bad in the eye of law and therefore it was not open for the Tribunal to take ''U'' turn to hold in Application No. 3904/1998 that the order of discharge is in accordance with law. He further submits that even assuming that wrong date of birth was furnished by the petitioner at the time of entry into service, the same would not make any difference, inasmuch as the application for compassionate ground was filed prior to 1982 itself and if that date is taken into consideration, then the application for appointment on compassionate ground was well within time.

The writ petition is opposed by Sri P.B. Bajentri, learned Government Advocate by contending that the petitioner had furnished wrong information and therefore he committed fraud. He further submits that the petitioner has not passed departmental examinations though his probationary period was extended from time to time for a period of almost about 12 years.

It is no doubt true that certain observations are made against the petitioner in Review Application No. 7/2001 by the Tribunal while allowing the said review application. It is but natural for the Tribunal/Court to assign certain reasons while deciding the matter. Such passing of remarks should not be taken as the conclusion reached by the Tribunal, more particularly when passing remarks are made while deciding the review application. After passing the order in review application, the main matter was heard by the very Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and the same has been decided against the petitioner holding that it is not necessary to hold full-pledged enquiry against the petitioner since he was on probationary period during the relevant time. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Sukhwinder Singh, , a probationer is on test and has no right to the post, probation period gives the employer time and opportunity to watch the probationer''s performance and to dispense with his service for want of suitability for the post. Ability, efficiency, sincerity and competence of the servant would be watched and if he is found unsuitable for the post, the master reserves a right to dispense with his service without anything more during or at the end of the prescribed period which is styled as period of probation. The period of probation furnishes a valuable opportunity to the Master to closely observe the work of the probationer and by the time the period of probation expires to make up his mind whether to retain the servant while absorbing him to regular service or dispense with his service.

It is by now well settled by catena of decisions that principles of natural justice do not apply and no formal proceedings of any enquiry is needed before making such order of discharge during period of probation. The Apex Court in the case of Municipal Committee, Sirsa Vs. Munshi Ram, , has gone a step ahead to observe that mere fact that there was an enquiry into the conduct of the employee concerned earlier would not thereby render the termination invalid.

Be that as it may, since the order of discharge is passed on valid reasons, such as, furnishing of wrong date of birth while entering into service, providing wrong information while in service and non-passing of departmental examinations though probationary period was extended for about 12 years. It is an order of discharge simplicitor.

In view of the same, the order of discharge cannot be said to be bad in the eye of law. Even assuming that the petitioner has applied for being appointed on compassionate ground in the year 1982, the same would not cure the defect. There is no rule that application for appointment on compassionate ground should be considered in favour of the employee immediately. There is no right as such vested with the person who claims appointment on compassionate ground. It is for the authority concerned to exercise discretion depending on fact situation.

In the matter on hand, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1986. But unfortunately, he had furnished wrong information while entering into service.

In view of the same, no interference is called for. Hence, writ petition fails and accordingly the same stands dismissed.