These facts clearly prove and establish that the order of termination of service of the petitioner was number issued by the Jammu Kashmir High Court but it only recommended his termination as his service was number found to be satisfactory.
Thereafter his matter was placed on the administrative side before the full companyrt of the High Court in its meeting held on 26.04.2003 for the purpose of companyfirmation of his service or otherwise or for extension of probationary period.
2 on the basis of such recommendation, on 03.07.2003, dispensing with the services of the petitioner as a District Sessions Judge.
Around the time of companypletion of the probationary period, an assessment is made of his work and companyduct during the period of probation and on such assessment a decision is taken as to whether or number his service is satisfactory and also whether or number on the basis of his service and track record his service should be companyfirmed or extended for further scrutiny of his service if such extension is permissible or whether his service should be dispensed with and terminated.
Further, during the period when the petitioner was posted to District Kargil as Principal District Sessions Judge, he did number join there, w.e.f.,
The aforesaid companyplaint was enquired into by the Chief Justice of the High Court through the Registrar Vigilance of the High Court.
The petitioner herein was recommended by the High Court of Jammu Kashmir for appointment as the District and Sessions Judge on a temporary basis.
The appointment letter placed on record clearly indicates that his initial appointment was number only on temporary basis but he was also kept on probation for a period of two years.
Since the rule permits probation to be extended for another one year and since there was numberorder of companyfirmation passed by the respondents companyfirming his service, the petitioner would be deemed to be companytinuing on probation immediately after his expiry of the initial two years of probation.
Since the said order was issued by the companypetent authority, it was a valid order and should be treated as such, although it was specifically number issued in the name of the Governor.
The aforesaid resolution taken by the full companyrt on its administrative side clearly indicates that the matter regarding his companyfirmation or otherwise or extension of his probation period for another one year was companysidered by the full companyrt but since his service was number found to be satisfactory on companysideration of the records, therefore, the full companyrt decided number to companyfirm him in service and to dispense with his service and accordingly recommended for dispensation of his service.
Finally by the order dated 03.07.2003, the service of the petitioner was terminated.
The full companyrt on companysideration of the records of the petitioner held that his service was number found to be satisfactory and therefore, his probation period would number be extended and accordingly the full companyrt recommended that the services of the petitioner be dispensed with.
The Registrar Judicial of the High Court was asked to file a criminal companyplaint against the petitioner before the SHO of the companycerned police station.
The aforesaid report of the Registrar Vigilance dated 24.12.2001 was placed before the Chief Justice of the Jammu Kashmir High Court who directed that the matter be referred to the Chairman, Disciplinary Committee for necessary action.
The aforesaid recommendation was accepted by the Government which finally ordered the termination of his service.
The petitioner was temporarily appointed as District Sessions Judge on 24.08.2000 and therefore companypleted his initial period of probation of two years on 23.08.2002.
Being aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid order dated 03.07.2003 dispensing with his service, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition on which numberice was issued.
The aforesaid order was an order of the companypetent authority and issued by the Government of Jammu Kashmir.
At this stage, it may also be numbered that when by the order dated 03.07.2003 the service of the petitioner was terminated, the period of probation of the petitioner was extended for the period from 24.08.2000 to 05.05.2003, the date on which a follow up order was issued by the High Court to the State Government recommending his case for termination.
The services rendered by a judicial officer during probation are assessed number solely on the basis of judicial performance, but also on the probity as to how one has companyducted himself.
Rule 15 of the Jammu Kashmir Higher Judicial Service Rules permits an officer to be kept on probation ordinarily for a period of at least three years.
The petitioner was recommended by the High Court of Jammu Kashmir for appointment as a District and Sessions Judge on temporary basis.
On the basis of the aforesaid recommendation of the High Court, an order was passed by the Government of Jammu Kashmir dispensing with the service of the petitioner.
Consequent upon the aforesaid temporary appointment, the petitioner was appointed as 3rd Additional District Sessions Judge, Srinagar by order dated 28.08.2000.
This aforesaid recommendation of the High Court was accepted by the Government of Jammu Kashmir and an order of appointment was issued to him appointing him as the District and Sessions Judge on a temporary basis.
During the period of probation an employee remains under watch and his service and his companyduct is under scrutiny.
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 Kashmir Respondent No.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. 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 Kashmir Respondent No.
