HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Vs. PANDEY MADAN MOHAN PRASAD SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Patna High court dated 22/10/1990 whereby the High court has allowed the writ petition (CWJC No. 2046 of 1987 filed by Respondent 1 challenging the validity of the order dated 29/8/1986 terminating his services.

(2.) Respondent 1 was appointed as Munsif by order dated 15/3/1974. The said appointment was on probation for a period of two years. The matter of confirmation of Respondent 1 was considered by the High court on a number of occasions from time to time but he was not found fit for confirmation even though recommendations had been made by the District judges concerned for his confirmation. On 19-6-1985 after considering the matter of confirmation of Respondent 1 and finding that he was not fit for confirmation, the High court decided that a recommendation be made to the state government that the temporary services of Respondent 1 as Munsif are no longer required and that his services should be terminated. The said decision of the High court was communicated to the State government by letter dated 5/8/1985. a communication was also sent to the District Judge, hazaribagh to withdraw all cases from the court of Respondent 1 and that he should not be given any judicial work. A communication dated 2/9/1985 was received from State government whereby the State government requested that the grounds for termination of the services of Respondent 1 may be furnished. The Standing Committee of the High court in its meeting held on 4/12/1985 decided that the adverse materials in the service record of respondent I should be communicated to the State government and in pursuance of the said decision the said material was communicated to the state government by letter dated 5/3/1986. It was also decided to communicate the said adverse material to Respondent 1 and in pursuance of the said decision, the adverse remarks in the service record of Respondent 1 were communicated to him by the District Judge, Hazaribagh. Thereafter, the order dated 29/8/1986 was passed whereby the services of Respondent 1 were terminated. It appears that Respondent 1 submitted a representation dated 28/8/1986, against the adverse remarks. The said representation was considered by the Standing Committee of the High court on 15/9/1986, and was rejected. Respondent 1 thereupon filed the writ petition in the High court which has given rise to this appeal.

(3.) Before the High court a number of contentions were raised by Respondent 1 but the writ petition of Respondent 1 has been allowed by the High court on two grounds, namely,