Lingaraj Rath, J. - (1.) The only question arising for consideration in this appeal is whether termination of the service of a probationer during the period of extended probation is liable to be set aside. Even though the order of termination is innocuous yet in the counter affidavit it was disclosed that the termination was on account of unsatisfactory service. The learned single Judge, whose judgment is impugned in the Appeal, held that if the termination of service of a probationer is made because of unsatisfactory service it is by way of stigma and the respondent would be ineligible for appointment in any public undertaking. He, therefore, set aside the order taking the view that a minimal enquiry was to have been conducted and opportunity given before the order was passed.
(2.) A brief adumbration of the facts is that the respondent was appointed as a Manager of Quarry on 13-6-1980 on probation of one year which, by the order of appointment as also under the relevant regulations, could be extended by another six months. On 13-7-1981, the probation was extended for six months but the service was terminated on 3-10-1981. The writ petition was filed on the averment that the order was in essence penal in nature though is innocuous on the face of it, and that no enquiry having been held the respondent had no opportunity to defend himself. The Honourable Single Judge, in upholding the contention of the respondent, referred to passages of the counter-affidavit where it has been stated that the work and conduct of the respondent was reviewed and conclusion was reached of those being not satisfactory. It was further stated that the work and conduct of the respondent was being reflected in the several advisory hotes that had been issued to him and inspite of bringing to his notice that he should improve his inter-personal relationship with his colleagues, no effort was made by him in that regard. During the extended period of probation the work and conduct of the respondent was being watched every month and when it was found that he was not making any effort to improve himself, decision was taken to terminate the probation and discharge him from service.
(3.) During the hearing of the appeal the respondent has not appeared. The counsel earlier appearing for him has retired from the case stating that he has been disengaged a fact which finds mention in the order dated 28-6-1992.;