Rama Jois, J. - (1.) The petitioners in these three petitions, who had been appointed as Munsiffs in the Judicial Service of the State, have presented these petitions questioning the legality of the orders by which they were discharged from service.
(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow: The three petitioners were selected for appointment to the posts of Munsiff in the Judicial Service of the State under the provisions of the Karnataka Munsiffs (Special Recruitment) Rules, 1978. On their appointment to the posts, they reported for duty on 13th October, 1978, before the High Court, After the completion of the period of training, they were posted to different places to work either as Munsiffs or as Magistrates. The period of probation fixed under the Rules was two years. However, as the validity of the appointments of the petitioners and others had been the subject matter of legal proceedings before this Court and subsequently before the Supreme Court, the period of probation was continuing in view of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977. The petitioners and another were discharged by an order made by the Governor on 7-11-1981 The said order reads : " GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA No. LAW.157.LAC.81. Karnataka Government Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, dated, 7th November 1981. ORDER In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, the Governor of Karnataka hereby orders the discharge from service, with immediate effect, of the following officers, as they are found to be unsuitable for the posts of Munsiffs. Sriyuths : Jahangir Shariff, Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Indi. L. Kumarachandra, Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Malavalli. H. Basavaraj, Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate I Class, Belthangady. L. S. Chikkanagoudar, Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate I Class, Somwarpet. GOVIND NARAIN GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA By Order and in the Name of the Governor of Karnataka. Sd)- (S. K. Ramadevamma) Under Secretary to Government Department of Law & Parly. Affairs (Admn.)." Questioning the legality of the said order, the petitioners have presented these Writ petitions.
(3.) Sri G.S. Visveswara, Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged the following five contentions as common to all the three petitions : (i) The conferment of the power to discharge on the Governor is ultra vires Article 235 of the Constitution of India and consequently the impugned order of discharge issued by the Governor is invalid as violative of Article 235 of the Constitution ; (ii) As the period of probation fixed under the Recruitment Rules is two years, the petitioners must be deemed to have been confirmed automatically on the expiry of the period of probation ; (iii) Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Probation Rules which gives power to the authority to keep quiet without passing any order even after the expiry of the period of probation, is arbitrary and unreasonable ; (iv) The discharge was made during the period of probation and therefore Rule 6 of the Probation Rules was attracted and as such the discharge should have been on a ground to be specified in the order of discharge and as no such ground is specified, the order is illegal and liable to be set aside ; (v) As increments had been granted, in view of Rule II of the Probation Rules, the petitioners must be deemed to have satisfactorily completed the period of probation ; In the cases of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 1327 and 3760 of 1982, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged the following additional contention : (vi) Though the order of discharge is innocuous, it is really in the nature of penalty imposed for misconduct. As no inquiry as required under Clause (2) of Article 411 of the Constitution read with Rules 11 and 11A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, was held, the order is liable to be set aside.;