- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 104839 OF 2023 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SRI. SAYAD IMAMSAB CHIMMAD S/O. IMAMSAB CHIMMAD, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: RESERVE POLICE CONSTABLE, R/O. 33, KULAHALLI, BANAHATTI TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT-587311. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, (HOME DEPARTMENT), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. R Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OPPOSITE TO MARTHAS HOSPITAL, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE POLICE COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI CITY, BELAGAVI-590001. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MARKET SUB-DIVISION, BELAGAVI CITY, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.10117/2022 DATED 23.12.2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT, 1985 AS PER ANNEXURE- A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.100117/2022 FILED BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present petition has been filed by the applicant before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi Bench (for short, ‘Tribunal’) challenging the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the Tribunal, whereby, challenge to the impugned order ‘discharging/terminating’ the applicant from service in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 [for short, ‘KCS (Probation) Rules’] came to be rejected. The Tribunal, after a detailed consideration, has rejected the application while upholding the order of ‘discharge/termination’ as being passed in terms of the power conferred under Rule 6(2) of the KCS (Probation) Rules. 2. The facts in brief are that the applicant who was appointed to the post of Armed Police Constable on 05.04.2017 pursuant to a Competitive Examination was posted to the Office of Commissioner of Police, Belagavi City. The applicant’s probation was not declared though other candidates who were appointed with him had the benefit of declaration of successful probation. The applicant's probation was further extended and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 during such period, a complaint was registered against the applicant alleging that he had allowed another employee to clear the Medical Examination, though he had the disability of eye by resorting to unfair means. In the context of such allegation, a criminal case was registered in Crime No.6/2021 at APMC Police Station, Belagavi City for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 120B of IPC. Though an enquiry was ordered by the employer as regards such conduct, however, the said enquiry came to be withdrawn and the impugned order of ‘discharge/termination’ came to be passed on 12.05.2021. 3. The said order having been upheld by the Tribunal, the applicant is before this Court challenging the order contending that the procedure under Rule 7 of ‘KCS (Probation) Rules’ which relates to termination for misconduct ought to have been followed which provided that, the order of termination ought to be in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 [for short, ‘KCS (CCA) Rules’]. In a nutshell, the contention of the applicant is that, if an order of termination is sought to be made on the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 premise of misconduct, the same could have been passed only if preceded by an enquiry in terms of the KCS (CCA) Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 28.01.2022 in Sri. Ramesh Malli v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Wireless) and Another1[Ramesh Malli] as well as the order dated 29.10.2024 passed in The State of Karnataka and Others v. Mahantesh Badaraddi2, the judgment of Apex Court in Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation and Another3 [Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja] in support of his contentions. 5. It is the assertion of the applicant that the Court requires to enter into the substance of the order terminating the services of the applicant and in the present case, the order of termination contains references to misconduct and accordingly, though the operative portion of the order, prima facie, would make out a case of discharge simplicitor, the Court should lift the veil, and if it were to find that the order of termination was in 1 W.P.No.104944/2021 2 W.P.No.107773/2023 3 (2007) 10 SCC 71 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 substance one for misconduct, then, it ought to be treated to be a termination which is stigmatic and legal consequence of not following the KCS (CCA) Rules ought to result in setting aside of the order of termination. 6. Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents on the other hand, would contend that the impugned order is an order of discharge simplicitor passed under Rule 6(2) of the KCS (Probation) Rules. It is submitted that in terms of Rule 6(2), the grounds of discharge are required to be mentioned in the order and accordingly, the grounds are mentioned in the preamble portion, while the operative portion of the order merely recites that the services of the applicant were not suitable and accordingly, the order of discharge was strictly in terms of Rule 6(2) and does not call for interference. Reliance is placed by learned Government Advocate on the decision in H.F. Sangati v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and Others4 [H.F.Sangati] as well as the decision in Municipal Committee, Sirsa v. Munshi Ram5 [Munshi Ram] and the judgment in Commissioner of Police, 4(2001) 3 SCC 117 5(2005) (2) SCC 382 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh6 as well as the order of Co-ordinate Bench in K.V. Sudarshan v. Director General of Police, Karnataka State, Bangalore and Others7 [K.V.Sudarshan]. 7. Learned Government Advocate would submit that, in the present case, the order of discharge was passed without an enquiry and one of the tests to find out if the order were to be stigmatic was to find out as to whether an enquiry has been conducted indicting the applicant. It submitted that, as no enquiry has been held and no finding of guilt has been recorded and at such stage, if on the ground of unsuitability, the order of discharge is passed, such order is strictly in compliance with Rule 6(2) and does not call for interference. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The order of ‘discharge/termination’ reads as hereinbelow:- 6 (2013) 7 SCC 685 7 2016 SCC Online Kar 8578. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 “¥ÉÆð¸ï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« £ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀ £ÀqÀĪÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ: ²æà ¸ÀAiÀÄåzÀ¸Á§ aªÀÄäqÀ, J.¦.¹-362 ¹JDgï ¨É¼ÀUÁ« £ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. G¯ÉèÃR: 1) F PÀbÉÃj £ÉêÀÄPÁw DzÉñÀ ¸ÀA.¹§âA¢- 1/£ÉêÀÄPÁw/J.¦.¹/ 05/2016-17, ¢£ÁAPÀ : 18-03-2017. 2) ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¥ÀæzsÁ£À ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: 24/¹§âA¢-1/2021-22, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 04.05.2021. *** ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É: G¯ÉèÃTvÀ F PÀbÉÃj DzÉñÀzÀ°è ²æà ¸ÀAiÀÄåzÀ¸Á§ aªÀÄäqÀ, J¦¹-362 gÀªÀjUÉ J¦¹ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤Ãr DzÉò¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 05-04-2017 gÀAzÀÄ J¦¹ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ ²æÃ¥Àw zÁæPÉë ¨É¼ÀUÁ« f¯Éè gÀªÀgÀÄ J¦¹ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ, ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è PÀtÂÚ£À ªÀuÁðAzsÀvÉ ¸ÀªÀĸÉå EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13.01.2021 gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ-2 zÁ£É±ÀégÀ ºÀ£ÀªÀÄAvÀ ²gÀUÀĦà gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ PÀtÂÚ£À ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÆøÀ¢AzÀ GwÛÃtð ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV ¨É¼ÀUÁ« £ÀUÀgÀzÀ J¦JA¹ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ¸ÀASÉå: 06/2021 PÀ®A:419, 420, 120 (B) L¦¹ £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤AUÀ¥Àà ªÀÄ®è¥ÀàÀà ¤A§gÀV FvÀ£ÀÄ ¹«® ¥Éưøï PÁ£ÀìmÉç¯ï ºÀÄzÀÝUÁV CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, DgÉÆæ ¸ÉÊAiÀÄzÀ EªÀiÁªÀĸÁ§ aªÀÄäqÀ J¦¹- 362 ¹JDgï ¨É¼ÀUÁ« £ÀUÀgÀ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ E£ÉÆߧâ DgÉÆæAiÀiÁzÀ ¹zÀÝ£ÀUËqÀ ¨Á¼ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánî gÀªÀjAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20-09-2020 gÀAzÀÄ §¸ÀªÉñÀégÀ ¦.AiÀÄÄ PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ºÉʸÀÆÌ® «¨sÁUÀ ©.«.«.J¸ï PÁåA¥À¸ï ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃlzÀ°è °TvÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gɬĹ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ºÉÆA¢zÀ §UÉÎ ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃl ±ÀºÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ UÀÄ£Éß £ÀA.14/2021 PÀ®A 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, gÉ/ªÀÅ 34 L¦¹ £ÉÃzÀgÀ°è Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹ ¸ÉÊAiÀÄzÀ EªÀiÁªÀĸÁ§ aªÀÄäqÀ J¦¹- 362 ¹JDgï ¨É¼ÀUÁ« £ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06.03.2021 gÀAzÀÄ zÀ¸ÀÛVgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DgÉÆævÀ£ÁzÀ vÀ£Àß ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÁ£ÀÄ §gÉAiÀÄzÉà ªÉÆøÀvÀ£À¢AzÀ vÀ£Àß ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĸÀÜ£ÁzÀ FvÀ¤AzÀ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀAiÀÄåzÀ¸Á§ aªÀÄäqÀ, J¦¹-362 ¹JDgï ¨É¼ÀUÁ« £ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ zÁR¯ÁVgÀªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¥ÉÆæ¨ÉõÀ£Àj CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è EªÀgÀ PÀvÀðªÀå vÀȦÛPÀgÀªÉAzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀzÀ PÁgÀt EªÀgÀ GªÉÄÃzÀĪÁjPÉ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05.01.2021 ªÀgÉUÉ «¸ÀÛj¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥ÉÆæ¨ÉõÀ£ï CªÀ¢ü «¸ÀÛj¹zÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄÄ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀæ«ÄãÀ¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR¯ÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ ¸ÉêÁ «ªÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¨ÉÃgÉ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¥ÀæªÀÈwÛAiÀÄļÀîªÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ¤UÉ ¸À®èzÀ wêÀÈ zÀÄ£ÀðqÀvÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀÄ ²¹Û£À ¥Éưøï E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä C£ÀºÀðgÁVgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt F PɼÀV£ÀAxÉ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. DzÉñÀ ¹§âA¢-1/¹N¦/378/2020-21 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12.05.2021 ªÉÄð£À ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀAiÀÄåzÀ¸Á§ aªÀÄäqÀ, J¦¹-362 ¹JDgï ¨É¼ÀUÁ« £ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄÄ vÀȦÛPÀgÀªÁVgÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt ºÁUÀÆ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR¯ÁVgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjPÀ ¹«í¯ï (¥Àj«ÃPÀëuÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ-1977 ¤AiÀĪÀÄ-5(1)(B) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 12-05-2021 jAzsÀ C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ EzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¹«í¯ï (¥Àj«ÃPÀëuÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1977 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 06(J) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ zÀÈrüPÀgÀt ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁVzÉ.” 10. A close scrutiny of the said order would indicate that in the preamble, no doubt, there is narration of acts committed by the applicant referring to the criminal case filed against him, however, the operative portion of the order recites that the services of the applicant are not satisfactory and as criminal case had been filed against him and his services are terminated on the ground of not being suitable. 11. The question is as to whether such order of termination would be one which is stigmatic as contended by the applicant requiring holding of a regular enquiry in terms of KCS (CCA) Rules as referred to in Rule 7 or would be an order of discharge simplicitor in terms of Rule 6. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 12. As noticed, though an enquiry was ordered, the enquiry was withdrawn. Accordingly, as on the date of passing of the impugned order, there was no enquiry. 13. Rule 6 of Probation Rules reads as follows:- “6. Discharge of a probationer during the period of probation.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in rule 5, the appointing authority may, at any time during the period of probation, discharge from service a probationer on grounds arising out of the conditions, if any, imposed by the rules or in the order of appointment, or an account of his unsuitability for the service or post; but the order of discharge except when passed by the Government shall not be given effect to till it has been submitted to and confirmed by the next higher authority. (2) An order discharging a probationer under this rule shall indicate the grounds for the discharge but no formal proceedings under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, shall be necessary.” 14. Rule 6(1) provides for discharge of a probationer on grounds:- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 (a) arising out of any conditions, if any, imposed by the Rules or in the order of appointment; (b) or on account of his unsuitability for the service of post; 15. It is thus clear that the power under Rule 6 could be exercised to discharge the services of the employee on account of unsuitability for service or post. 16. Rule 6(2) provides for discharging of a probationer under Rule 6 which requires that the grounds for discharge should be indicated in the order. It is further clarified that the order of discharge would not require formal proceedings under the KCS (CCA) Rules. 17. It is relevant to notice Rule 7 of the KCS (Probation) Rules which deals with termination for misconduct. Rule 7 reads as follows:- “7. Termination for misconduct.- No order terminating the services of a probationer, whether during or at the end of the period of probation for any misconduct, shall be passed except in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.” - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 18. Rule 7 mandates that an order terminating the services of a probationer can be passed only in accordance with the KCS (CCA) Rules. 19. It is clear that Rule 6 of KCS (Probation) Rules deals with discharge which does not require to be preceded by formal proceedings under the KCS (CCA) Rules. Such discharge which results in cessation of services of the employee is to be construed to be permissible discharge without enquiry. 20. While on the other hand, the termination for misconduct under Rule 7 provides for termination of services on ground of misconduct which termination is to be preceded by an enquiry as stipulated under the KCS (CCA) Rules. 21. The only manner of construing Rules 6 and 7 of KCS (Probation) Rules sans contradiction would be to construe discharge in terms of Rule 6 and termination for - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 misconduct as per Rule 7 to be the two modes of cessation of service at the instance of the employer. 22. It is in the context of the above framework that the order dated 12.05.2021 impugned before the Tribunal requires to be tested. 23. The preamble of the said order narrates the relevant facts and events which are that the applicant has indulged in malpractice in appointment process leading to registering of a case in Crime No.14/2021 against him and was arrested in connection with such proceedings, that probation was extended as the applicant’s services were not found to be satisfactory, that during the extension of probationary service criminal case came to be filed, that he was in the habit of helping candidates to obtain employment by cheating the Government. 24. The operative portion of the order would indicate that the services of the applicant was found to be - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 unsatisfactory and as criminal case was registered, he was being terminated in terms of Rule 5(1)(b) of the KCS (Probation) Rules. 25. Rule 5(1)(b) reads as follows:- “5. Declaration of satisfactory completion of probation etc.,-(1) At the end 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) xxx (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.” 26. Rule 5 provides for completion of probation and Rule 5(1)(b) provides for discharge on the ground that the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 appointing authority decides that the probationer is not suitable to hold the post. 27. The challenge to the order passed on 12.05.2021 before the Tribunal came to be rejected upholding the impugned order by treating it to be one of discharge under Rule 6. 28. The observations made at paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8 in the order of the Tribunal read as follows:- “6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants in the present case is that when the applicant was appointed as Armed Police Constable and when his probationary period was not declared as satisfactory, the impugned order could not have been passed under Rule 5(1)(B) of the Karnataka Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1977 by dismissing the applicant from service. When the Rule clearly states that he has to be discharged from the service, the impugned order passed dismissing him from the service is in contravention of Rules, 1977. 7. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned AGA that on the basis of a report submitted by the Reserve Police Inspector, on 23.08.2019 that the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 applicant’s service was not satisfactory, the probation period was extended in accordance with Rule 4 of KCS (Probation) Rules-1977 from 05.10.2019 to 05.01.2021 and during the extended probation period, the applicant was involved in 7 cases wherein, FIRs were registered against the applicant and the applicant having joined the disciplined police force when involved in 7 criminal cases and he was arrested three times during the extended probation period, the respondents having noticed the applicant’s involvement in criminal cases have passed the impugned order by invoking the Rules 5(1)(B) of the Karnataka Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1977 and they have rightly discharged him from the service. But in the impugned order it is by mistake it is stated as the applicant is dismissed from service. In this regard, when if the impugned order is perused, the applicant is discharged from service during extended period of probation on the ground that the applicant was involved in criminal cases. Since the applicant has joined the police force as Armed Police Constable and it is during the extended period of probation as he was involved in illegal activities of helping candidates to write exams by some other persons and as a result criminal cases were registered. The 3rd respondent having satisfied that the applicant is not suitable to hold the post of armed police constable, by following - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 Rule 5(1)(A) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Probationary) Rules, 1977 and by obtaining prior confirmation from the higher authority has passed impugned order of discharging the applicant from the service. 8. As rightly contended by the learned AGA, by oversight instead of using the word discharged from the service, it was mentioned as dismissed from the service. When the respondents have followed the due procedure of discharging the applicant from the service by following Rules 5 & 6 of Rules 1977, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that under Rule 5(1)(b) of Rules, 1977, the applicant should have been discharged from the service, but he should not have been dismissed from the service is untenable. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent when the applicant has preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, as there was no provision to file appeal against the order of discharge, rightly, the 1st respondent has issued the impugned endorsement stating that there is no provision to file appeal against the said order of discharge.” 29. Before this Court, the applicant has raised further grounds. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 30. The probation of the applicant not having been declared as successful, the employer having resorted to discharge of probationer on the ground of applicant being unsuitable, such power is available in terms of Rule 5(1)(b) as well as Rule 6(2) of KCS (Probation) Rules. 31. The preamble of the impugned order would constitute the grounds for discharge as mandated under Rule 6(2). The operative portion has the effect of discharging the service of the petitioner on the ground of his service being unsatisfactory. The expression of services being unsatisfactory as a ground for discharge under Rule 5(1)(b) is to be construed that the employer has considered the services of the applicant of being unsuitable. 32. Insofar as the use of the word, ‘terminated from service’ in the operative portion of the order must not be read out of context. When the reference is made to services being unsuitable and to Rule 5(1)(b), such expressions together would unambiguously indicate that the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 impugned order is one of discharging the services of the employee on the ground of unsuitability. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the use of the word, ‘terminated’ in the operative portion of the order is to be treated to be a mistake. 33. Insofar as the contention that the order must be treated to be one which is stigmatic in light of the order referring to criminal case as well as acts of misconduct in the preamble portion of the impugned order, the contention of the order being stigmatic does not require acceptance, for the reasons stated infra. 34. Clearly power is conferred to discharge the services of an employee during probation if his services are found unsuitable in terms of Rule 5(1)(b) read with Rule 6(2). Rule 6(2) provides that the grounds of discharge must be mentioned in the order, the mere narration of the grounds as found in the impugned order in the preamble would not have the effect of converting the order of - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 discharge for unsuitability as one of termination for misconduct warranting procedure under Rule 7 to be followed. 35. It is relevant to notice that Rule 7 provides for termination on the ground of misconduct and in case of such termination, the procedure under the KCS (CCA) Rules requires to be followed. 36. The termination on the ground of misconduct, needless to state would require a finding that there was misconduct, which finding could be recorded only pursuant to an enquiry. In the present facts, though an enquiry was initially ordered, rightly, the employer has withdrawn the enquiry and proceeded to pass an order discharging the applicant from service. Any reference to criminal cases filed and other malpractices, when taken note of as in the present case must be relatable to the conclusion of unsuitability of the employee as contemplated under Rule 5(1)(b) read with Rule 6(1) of KCS (Probation) Rules. In - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 such context, the impugned order cannot be treated to be a stigmatic order requiring following of procedure under Rule 7. 37. The power conferred to pass an order of discharge on the ground of unsuitability with the requirement under Rule 6 to mention the grounds leading to the conclusion of employee being unsuitable would permit the employer to narrate in the preamble the grounds of unsuitability as has been done in the present case. 38. It would be relevant to notice the observations of the Apex Court on this very Rule in H.F.Sangati (supra). The discussion made draws strength from the reasoning of the Apex Court contained at paras-10 and 11 which read as follows:- “10. In our opinion the impugned order does not cast any stigma on the appellants. All that has been said in the impugned order is that the appellants were unsuitable to hold the post of Munsifs. It is pertinent to note that Rule 6 contemplates a probationer being discharged from service on one or more of the following - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 grounds: (i) in terms of a condition imposed by the Rules, (ii) in terms of the order of appointment, or (iii) on account of unsuitability of the appointee for the service or post. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 requires an order discharging the probationer to indicate the grounds for the discharge. It also provides that such indicating of the grounds for the discharge in the order would not require any formal proceedings under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 being held. The impugned order of discharge has been passed in strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 6. It does not cast any stigma on the appellants nor is it punitive. There was, thus, no requirement to comply with the principles of natural justice, much less to be preceded by any formal proceedings of inquiry before making the order. 11. Reliance by the appellants on the decisions of this Court in V.P. Ahuja [(2000) 3 SCC 239 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 606] is misconceived. In V.P. Ahuja's case [(2000) 3 SCC 239 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 606] the appellant's appointment was terminated during the period of probation. One of the recitals of the order was that the appellant “failed in the performance of his duties, administratively and technically”. The order was founded on a stigmatic allegation and was, therefore, held punitive. The appellant was an employee of a Cooperative Federation in Punjab. The judgment does - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 not refer to the relevant service rules and none have been brought to our notice so as to claim parity of the appellant's case with that of V.P. Ahuja case [(2000) 3 SCC 239 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 606] . In these appeals, as we have already stated, the statutory rule requires the order of discharge to indicate the grounds for the discharge. If the ground for discharge would not have been mentioned in the impugned order, it would have invited the criticism of being arbitrary or not satisfying the requirement of the rule. It may be stated that in the High Court, the appellants have not laid any challenge to the vires of Rule 6. H.F. Sangati, the appellant appearing in person, made a faint attempt at challenging the vires of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 abovesaid but the same was not permitted in the facts and circumstances of the case as such a plea was not raised before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court.” 39. Clearly in an identical factual matrix, the Apex Court has reiterated that an order of discharge under Rule 6(2) cannot be treated to be stigmatic merely for enumerating the grounds of discharge as mandated under the Rule. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 40. On the same lines is the order of Division Bench in K.V.Sudarshan (supra). 41. The reliance of learned counsel for the applicant on the judgment of Co-ordinate bench passed in Ramesh Malli (supra) does not come to the aid of the petitioner. The observations made by the Division Bench was in the context of the wordings of the order of ‘discharge/termination’. The Co-ordinate Bench was dealing with an order passed discharging the services taking note of indictment contained in an enquiry report. The Court proceeded to lift the veil holding that the order of discharge was premised on misconduct which required enquiry under Rule 7. The Court had specifically observed that the order was a stigmatic order and not an order of discharge simplicitor. Noticing that the order in the present case is not based on any indictment in any enquiry report, the order of the Division Bench is distinguishable. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 42. Further, the order of the Apex Court in H.F. Sangati (supra) which specifically deals with the ambit and scope of Rule 6(2) not having been noticed by the Co-ordinate Bench, the interpretation to Rule 6(2) made in terms of the discussion above requires to be followed. 43. In the present case, the order passed was without reference to any enquiry report and hence, could not be construed to be stigmatic. 44. The Apex Court, in the case of Munshi Ram (supra) while dealing with the tests to identify a punitive order of termination has made certain observations in paras-13 and 14 which would be of relevance are extracted hereinbelow:- “13. In Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences [(2002) 1 SCC 520 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 170] this Court again considering a similar case held: (SCC p. 528, para 21) “21. One of the judicially evolved tests to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive is to see - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 whether prior to the termination there was (a) a full-scale formal enquiry (b) into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated in a finding of guilt. If all three factors are present the termination has been held to be punitive irrespective of the form of the termination order. Conversely if any one of the three factors is missing, the termination has been upheld.” 14. From the above, it is seen that in the absence of the three facts as mentioned therein, namely, (a) a full-scale formal enquiry (b) into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated in a finding of guilt the termination cannot be held to be bad.” 45. If the above tests were to be applied, the order in the present case passed without an enquiry would be a non-stigmatic order. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 46. Taking note of the permissibility of discharge on the ground of unsuitability as provided under the Rule, the determination of whether the order is stigmatic or simplicitor may be of not much significance. Not having challenged the validity of the Rule, Rule 6(2) of KCS (Probation) Rules would be binding and discharge in terms of it cannot be called in question. If that were to be so, the reliance by the petitioner on the judgment of Apex Court in Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja (supra) would also be of no assistance. The observations of Apex Court drawing a distinction between stigmatic and non-stigmatic order of termination would be a distinction relevant in the absence of stipulation in Rule 6(2) as is applicable in the present case. 47. Rule 17.3 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules provided for termination if performance of employee was not upto the expected level. In the present case, the stipulation in Rule 6(2) which mandates mentioning of ground leading to conclusion of unsuitability is a crucial - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11903-DB WP No. 104839 of 2023 distinction that would obviate reliance on judgments relating to stigmatic and non-stigmatic termination. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RKM/PJ/VGR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2