Tripura High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Probationary Judicial Officer For Seeking Favourable Transfer By Approaching Union Minister

The Judicial officer allegedly approached a Union Minister to influence a favourable transfer. On the receipt of the recommendation by the High Court Registry, the High Court charged the officer for exercising extraneous influence upon the High Court and issued show-cause.

Subsequently, the Full Court decided to recommend that the petitioner's "demeanour is unbecoming of a judicial officer and his integrity is also doubtful" as a consequence of which the Law Department, Government of Tripura issued a Notification discharging the petitioner from service.

Challenging his dismissal the petitioner Judicial Officer vehemently denied the accusations, claiming he never contacted the minister and the transfer recommendation letter was fabricated. Regarding his absence from duties, he maintained informing the District Judge about his illness via WhatsApp messages. Lastly, he contended that a probationer cannot be discharged from his service without inquiry and argued the dismissal without an inquiry violated his rights and unfairly tarnished his reputation.

In response, the state government, along with the High Court emphasized the petitioner's actions constituted misconduct and rendered him unfit for judicial service. They highlighted his probationary status, exempting him from the inquiry requirement mandated by Article 311 of the Constitution for permanent employees. They further clarified the discharge order wasn't punitive and adhered to service rules.

Observations Of The Court:

Upon meticulously dissecting the petitioner's conduct the bench comprising Justices T. Amarnath Goud and Biswajit Palit noted a pattern of excuses without substantive justification and emphasized the provisions of Rule 15(6) of the Judicial Service Rules, 2003, which allow for the discharge of probationers without a formal inquiry in cases of unsuitability for service.

Additionally, the bench clarified that the petitioner's status as a judicial officer, not a civil servant, and thus not covered under Article 311 of the Indian Constitution.

“Further, this Court agrees with the submission of learned Advocate General that the petitioner was a probationer Judicial officer and not a civil servant. As such, the petitioner is not covered under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The service

rule of the petitioner being a Judicial Officer is covered by Judicial Service Rules. 2003. Further the ambit of the Article 311 of the Constitution of India pertains to the permanent employees”, the bench recorded.

Commenting on the contention of the Judicial Officer that he did not approach the Minister for issuing any such letter and the same had been done for the creation of a spurious foundation for the discharge of petitioner from service the bench observed,

“After proper perusal of the conduct of the petitioner in approaching before the Registry of this Court for his transfer and thereafter issuance of a D.O. letter by a Hon'ble Minster of State recommending his transfer inspires high suspicious in the mind of this Court that the D.O. letter of Hon'ble Minister of State was issued without the petitioner approaching the Hon'ble Minister and the same was 'Act of God”.

The bench added,

“The petitioner contents that he does not know the Hon'ble Minister of State and he further contents that somebody to defame the petitioner with a malafide intention had played the said game behind the back and he pleads innocence to that effect. The said submission is hypothetical and cannot be accepted”.

Further, the court underscored discrepancies in the petitioner's House Rent Allowance (HRA), pointing out that his entitlement exceeded permissible limits. It highlighted the petitioner's failure to adhere to prescribed rules and standards expected of judicial officers.

While upholding the dismissal, the court however exhibited leniency towards the petitioner's future prospects and modified the observation given by the Full Court that the petitioner's “demeanour is unbecoming of a judicial officer and his integrity is also doubtful”, and replaced it with the observation that “the conduct of the petitioner is unbecoming of Judicial Officer and doubtful” .

Case Title: Sri Koushik Karmakar Vs State Of Tripura

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Trip) 1

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment