- (1.) This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra from the judgment of the Bombay High Court given in a Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1 for quashing the order of termination of his service. The High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order.
(2.) Respondent No.1 was appointed a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on probation in accordance with the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956 - hereinafter referred to as the Rules. In paragraph 3 of the appointment letter dated 31st October, 1960 it was clearly stated :- "You will be on probation for a period of two years from the date on which you take charge of your appointment, and during this period your appointment is liable to be terminated without notice. After the period of probation your services are liable to be terminated on one month's notice as long as your appointment is temporary. It should be clearly understood that your appointment at present is purely temporary". Respondent No.1 pursuant to the said letter of appointment joined the Judicial Service, Class II, in the State of Maharashtra on the 7th December, 1960. The two years' probationary period originally fixed expired on 6th December, 1962; even so he was allowed to continue in the post only in an officiating capacity and was not confirmed. His services were terminated by a simple order of termination dated the 15th December, 1971 which ran as follows :- "The Government is pleased to terminate the services of Shri V. R. Saboji, Officiating Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalamnuri, District Parbhani with effect from 1st February, 1972". A copy of the above order was forwarded to and served upon the first respondent along with a covering letter of that date expressly stating therein:- "Your appointment is still temporary and your services are liable to be terminated on one month's notice. I am to state that Government has decided to terminate your services with effect from 1st February, 1972 and that you will, therefore cease to be in service with effect (from) that date. A formal order is enclosed herewith".
(3.) The first respondent challenged the order of his termination in the High Court by filing a Writ Petition impleading the then Law Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra as respondent No.1, State of Maharashtra, respondent No.2 and S/Shri K. N. Wahi and P. G. Karnik as respondents 3 and 4 respectively. To put it briefly, the case made out by the first respondent in his Writ Petition was that he had become a confirmed Government servant and the order terminating his services simpliciter was by way of punishment. Respondents 3 and 4 were respectively District and Inspecting District Judges in the District where respondent No.1 happened to work under them. They bore some ill-feeling and ill-will against him and had made certain enquiries and reported the matter to the High Court as a result of which, according to the belief of the said respondent, some adverse remarks were given to him and his services were terminated at the insinuation of the said two officers. Affidavits were filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra and respondents 3 and 4 as well. The latter two in their counters denied the allegations of mala fides against them.;