MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against the impugned administrative order of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir [Respondent No. 1] recommending the termination of service of the petitioner who was working as a probationary Judicial Officer, and also against the order issued by the State of Jammu and Kashmir [Respondent No. 2] on the basis of such recommendation, on 03.07.2003, dispensing with the services of the petitioner as a District and Sessions Judge.
(2.) THE petitioner herein was recommended by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir for appointment as the District and Sessions Judge on a temporary basis. This aforesaid recommendation of the High Court was accepted by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and an order of appointment was issued to him appointing him as the District and Sessions Judge on a temporary basis. It was clearly mentioned in the said order of appointment issued by the State Government that the petitioner would remain on probation for a period of two years as provided under the Jammu and Kashmir Higher Judicial Service Rules. Consequent upon the aforesaid temporary appointment, the petitioner was appointed as 3rd Additional District Sessions Judge, Srinagar by order dated 28.08.2000. THEreafter he was transferred and posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jammu by issuing an order dated 05.06.2001. At this stage, it is required to be mentioned that in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Higher Judicial Service Rules, the total period of probation for a Judicial Officer after his initial appointment could be for three years for when he is initially appointed, at the first instance his probation period is given as two years and thereafter the same could be extended by another one year. In this connection, reference could be made to Rule 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Higher Judicial Service Rules which provides as follows: "15. Probation - (1) All persons shall on appointment to the service in the substantive vacancies be placed on probation. The period of probation shall, in each case, be two years; provided that the period for which an officer has been continuously officiating immediately prior to his appointment may be taken into account, for the purpose of computing the period of probation. (2) The Governor may in consultation with the Court, at any time extend the period of probation; provided that the total period of probation shall not ordinarily exceed three years. An order sanctioning such extension of probation shall specify whether or not such extension shall count for increment in the time-scale. (3) If it appears to the appointing authority at any time during or at the end of the period of probation or extended period of probation, as the case may be, that a probationer has not made sufficient use of his opportunities or has otherwise failed to give satisfaction, his service may be dispensed with immediately. (4) A person whose services are dispensed with shall not be entitled to any compensation." The petitioner was also given his increments in terms of the rules. However, while the petitioner was so serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, a complaint was received against him, filed by one Mr. Babu Ram, which was duly supported by an affidavit dated 06.08.2001, contending inter alia that the petitioner while acting as a counsel for him fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs. 2.6 lacs deposited with the Registrar [Judicial], High Court of Jammu and Kashmir which was payable to the complainant - Babu Ram.
(3.) THE aforesaid complaint was enquired into by the Chief Justice of the High Court through the Registrar [Vigilance] of the High Court. On conclusion of the enquiry, a report was submitted stating inter alia that Mr. Rajesh Kohli, the petitioner herein, who was engaged by Mr. Narain Dutt - the attorney holder of Babu Ram, identified someone else as Babu Ram before Registrar [Judicial], Jammu and Kashmir High Court and received an account payee cheque in the name of Babu Ram. In the said report, it was also alleged that the petitioner besides identifying the impersonator as Babu Ram, also introduced him to Vijaya Bank at the time of opening of the Bank account and thereby managed to unlawfully receive an amount of Rs. 2.6 lacs, while the real beneficiary - Babu Ram neither appeared before the Registrar [Judicial] or before Vijaya bank nor did he receive the said amount. THE aforesaid report of the Registrar [Vigilance] dated 24.12.2001 was placed before the Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court who directed that the matter be referred to the Chairman, Disciplinary Committee for necessary action. THE Registrar [Judicial] of the High Court was asked to file a criminal complaint against the petitioner before the SHO of the concerned police station. Further, during the period when the petitioner was posted to District - Kargil as Principal District and Sessions Judge, he did not join there, w.e.f., 24.12.2001 to 18.01.2002 and an explanation was sought from him in that regard. Even thereafter, a complaint from a judicial employee of District Kargil was received wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had been abusing the employees and had created lot of problems at the District Kargil. These matters are recorded in the personal records of the petitioner. After completion of the initial two years of his probationary period, his records and his case were required to be placed before Full Court for consideration of his case for confirmation or extension of period of probation or otherwise. Consequently his records were considered by the High Court in its full court meeting held on 26.04.2003 at Jammu, wherein it was resolved as under: resolved that services of Shri Rajesh Kohli, District and Sessions Judge are not found satisfactory and thus the probation of the officer is not extended.................. His services are dispensed with..............." 6.1. The aforesaid resolution of the full court meeting with the recommendation was forwarded to the State Government and the State Government passed an order on 03.07.2003, whereby the services of the petitioner was dispensed with as recommended by the Hon'ble High Court. This action was taken in exercise of the powers vested on the competent authority under sub Rules 3 and 4 of Rule 15 of the Judicial Service Rules. ;