[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramesh S/O Shankar Rao Doddamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
WP No. 46965 of 2011
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 46965 OF 2011 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH S/O. SHANKARRAO DODDAMANI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
CIVIL JUDGE (JR DN), OOD, LEAVE RESERVE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE,
R/O. C/O. PRANESH V. KULKARNI,
"PADMASHREE", PLOT NO.2302,
VANISHREE NAGAR, SATTUR,
DHARWAD-580 009.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANT P.SAVADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (ADMN-1),
DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS,
MANJANNA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
E
2. THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E
BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
Location: HIGH COURT REGISTRAR GENERAL,
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.02.18
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE.
10:31:33 +0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTIO OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 31.12.2010 MADE IN GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE
FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS &
OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE (ANNEXURE-W), AND
EXTEND ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE BENEFITS AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
WP No. 46965 of 2011
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the Government
order dated 31.12.2010, whereby, the petitioner, Civil
Judge (Junior Division), was discharged from service in
exercise of the powers under Rule 5(1)(b) of the Karnataka
Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 ('Rules' for short).
2. The petitioner entered the Karnataka Judicial
Service pursuant to a selection process and joined as a Civil
Judge (Junior Division) in the year 1991, subject to
probation under the Rules. Owing to non-passing of the
Kannada language examination, an order of discharge came
to be passed in the year 1998. The said order was
challenged and Division Bench of this Court set aside the
discharge, holding that the termination was attributable
only to non-passing of the language examination not on
grounds of merit or integrity.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
HC-KAR
3. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated into
service on 01.04.2005. However, he continued to be on
probation, and his suitability for confirmation was required
to be assessed afresh.
4. During the reinstatement period, the petitioner
worked at different stations. His performance was assessed
through "Annual Confidential Reports" (ACR), disposal
statement and other administrative inputs. The petitioner
was not confirmed in service. His case was placed before
the administrative Committee-III of the High Court, which
examined the entire service records and opined that the
petitioner was not suitable for confirmation. The
recommendation of the administrative Committee was
thereafter placed before the Full Court, which, in its meeting
dated 08.10.2010, approved the recommendation. Based on
the approval of the Full Court, the State Government issued
the impugned Government order dated 31.12.2010,
discharging the petitioner from service. Aggrieved, the
present writ petition has filed.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that:
i. In substance that the petitioner was kept on
probation for inordinately long period, which
is impermissible in law.
ii. The impugned discharge, though coached as
a probationary discharge, is punitive in
substance, being founded on adverse
material.
iii. The confidential reports relied upon was
never communicated, rendering the action
arbitrary and violative of principles of natural
justice.
iv. The earlier Division Bench judgment
reinstating the petitioner precluded the
respondents from reassessing his suitability.
v. The action violates Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
HC-KAR
6. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:
i. Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India and
Others1 (Anoop Jaiswal),
ii. Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satvendra Nath
Bose National Cente for Basi Sciences,
Calcutta2 (Dipti Prakash),
iii. Mery Kutty Vs. The Hindusthan Times,
Bangalore and Another3 (Mery Kutty),
iv. Sharanabasappa Andanappa Chiniwar Vs.
Deputy Inspector General of Police4
(Sharanabasappa),
v. Zahur Mulla Vs. Union on India and Others5
(Zahur Mulla),
to contend that where termination is founded on adverse
material or casts a stigma, it is punitive and unsustainable
without due process.
(1984) 2 SCC 369
1999-Air(SC)-0-983
2007(3) KAR. L.J 294
WP.No.26679 of 1982 D.D 25.08.1986
ILR 2014 KAR 1521
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
HC-KAR
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner was never
confirmed in service due to unsatisfactory performance.
After reinstatement on 01.04.2005, the petitioner's
performance was reviewed, confidential reports (2004-
2008), consistently showed lack of improvement and
unsatisfactory work. The case was placed before the
administrative Committee-III of the High Court (consisting
of Senior Judges). The committee considered ACRs,
vigilance records and overall work performance and
resolved that the petitioner was unsuitable to be confirmed
as a Civil Judge and the recommendation was placed before
the Full Court, which approved the decision on 08.10.2010.
Based on this, the Government passed the discharge order
dated 31.12.2010 under Rule 5 (1)(b) of the Rules.
8. It is asserted that the discharge is simple, non-
punitive and non-stigmatic and no formal enquiry was
required as the petitioner was a probationer and the
discharge is based only on unsuitability and work
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
HC-KAR
performance, not misconduct. Reliance is placed on the
following decision:
i. Khazia Mohammed Muzammil Vs. State of
Karnataka and Another6 (Khazia Mohammed),
ii. Chaitanya Prakash and Another Vs. H.
Omkarappa7 (Chaitanya),
iii. H. F. Sangati Vs. Registrar General High
Court of Karnataka and Others8 (H. F.
Sangati),
iv. Samsher Singh and Another Vs. State of
Punjab9 (Samsher Singh),
and submits that a probationer has no right to confirmation.
Discharge during probation for unsatisfactory service is
valid and does not attract Article 311. It is submitted that
the writ petition has to be dismissed with costs as being
devoid of merits.
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 573
2010 (1) SCC (L&S) 644
(2001) 3 SCC 117
(1974) 2 SCC 831
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
HC-KAR
9. Learned counsel AGA for the State submits that
the petitioner's discharge was a legal right and justifies the
petitioner's discharge as lawful termination of a prohibition
based on a service assessment approved by the
administrative committee-III and the Full Court and the
discharge is made as per Rule 5 (1)(b) of the Rules, and
sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions and perused the material on record. The point
that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the Government Order dated
31.12.2010, discharging the petitioner from the
service under Rule 5 (1)(b) of the Karnataka Civil
Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, suffers from
illegality, arbitrariness or procedural impropriety?"
11. For proper appreciation, Rule 5 of the Rules
reads as under:
"5. Declaration of satisfactory
completion of probation etc. - (1) At the end
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
HC-KAR
of the prescribed or, as the case may be, the
reduced or extended period of probation, the
Appointing Authority shall consider the suitability
of the probationer to hold the post to which he
was appointed, and.-
(a) if it decides that the probationer is suitable to
hold the post to which he was appointed and
has passed the special examinations or tests,
if any, required to be passed during the
period of probation it shall, as soon as
possible, issue an order declaring the
probationer to have satisfactorily completed
his probation and such an order shall have
effect from the date of the expiry of the
prescribed, reduced or extended period of
probation;
(b) if the Appointing Authority decides that the
probationer is not suitable to hold the post to
which he was appointed or has not passed the
special examinations or special tests, if any,
required to be passed during the period of
probation, it shall, unless the period of
probation is extended under rule 4, by order,
discharge him from service.
(2) A probationer shall not be considered to
have satisfactorily completed the probation unless a
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
HC-KAR
specific order to that effect is passed. Any delay in
the issue of an order under sub-rule (1) shall not
entitle the probationer to be deemed to have
satisfactorily completed his probation."
12. The Rule clearly vests the appointing authority
with a power to discharge a probationer on the ground of
unsuitability without holding a departmental enquiry
provided the action is bona fide and not stigmatic. The
petitioner continued to hold the status of a probationer.
Confirmation is not automatic and depends upon the
assessment of suitability. The material on record discloses
that the petitioner's suitability was examined by the
administrative committee and therefore after by the Full
Court, which is the administrative body of the High Court.
The impugned order is not stigmatic and does not attribute
any misconduct or moral turpitude to the petitioner.
13. This Court, in exercise of judicial review, cannot
sit in appeal over the assessment of suitability made by the
appointing authority unless mala fides, arbitrariness or
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
HC-KAR
perversity is demonstrated. No such case is made out. The
judgments relied by the petitioner's counsel in Anoop
Jaiswal and Dipti Prakash, lay down the principle that if
termination is founded on allegation of mis-allegations or
misconduct, it is punitive. However, in the present case, the
order of discharge does not record any allegation of
misconduct nor does it cast any stigma. The foundation of
the Order is unsuitability for confirmation, not misconduct.
The judgments relied upon in Mery Kutty,
Sharanabasappa and Zahur Mulla, these judgment
cautioned against indefinite probation and reliance on
uncommunicated adverse remarks. Here, the petitioner was
periodically reviewed by the constitutional authorities of the
High Court. The continuation of probation and eventual
discharge followed an institutional decision of the Full Court,
which stands on a different footing from the routine
departmental action. The judgment relied upon by the
petitioner reiterate settled principles, however, each case
turns on its own facts, and none of the said decisions dilute
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
HC-KAR
the power of the employer to discharge a probation found
unsuitable, when such decision is taken bona fide and by a
competent authority.
14. On the contrary, the judgments relied by the
respondents in case of Khazia Mohammed, the principle is
that the probationer has no vested or indefensible right to
confirmation. The appointing authority is entitled to assess
overall suitability, and if the probationer is found unsuitable,
discharge during probation is permissible. The judicial
review is limited to examining mala fides or perversity and
not the sufficiency of material evidence. The said judgment
applies to the present facts as the petitioner's continuation
as a probationer does not create a right to confirmation and
that discharge under Rule 5 (1)(b) is legally permissible.
15. The judgment in Chaitanya's case, the principle
lay down is that even after the extension of probation an
employee continues to be a probationer until confirmed by
an express order and that a employer discharged on the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
HC-KAR
ground of unsuitability does not amount to punishment and
the employer is not required to hold departmental enquiry,
when the discharge is non-stigmatic and the judgment
squarely applies to the present fact, as the discharge of the
petitioner without enquiry is justified, as the order does not
cast stigma or record misconduct. In H. F. Sangati's case,
it related to the judicial officers, assessment of suitability by
the administrative committee and the Full Court carries
great weight. The Courts should exercise self-restraint and
not interfere with the administrative decisions relating to
service suitability unless arbitrariness or mala fides are
shown. A probationer in judicial service has no automatic
right to confirmation and the said judgment squarely applies
to the present facts.
16. The termination is not punitive merely because it
follows an assessment of work or conduct unless the order
expressly or by necessarily implicate stigma, it remains a
termination simplicitor and the argument of the petitioner's
counsel that it is stigmatic could not hold water. In
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
HC-KAR
Samsher Singh's case, the distinction between motive and
foundation is laid out. If the misconduct is merely the
motive and not the foundation of termination, the order
remains non-punitive and the probationary discharge based
on assessment of suitability does not attract Article 311 of
the Constitution of India.
17. The consistent line of decisions stated supra
establishes that a probationer has no right to confirmation
that the discharge on ground of unsuitability under the
Rules is legally permissible, that such discharge is not
punitive or stigmative, if no misconduct is recorded and that
in case of judicial officers, decision of the administrative
committee and the Full Court merit the highest degree of
judicial reference.
18. For foregoing reasons, the point framed for
consideration is answered and this Court pass the following:
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1763
HC-KAR
ORDER
The writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
AT
Ct:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
