- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THIS intra-court appeal is directed against the order of Single Bench, dated 28.3.2012, whereby S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11327/2012, filed by petitioner/appellant has been dismissed. The petitioner was appointed on the post of L.D.C. On probation, his conduct was not satisfactory during his probation period, however, one opportunity was afforded to him and his probation period was extended vide order dated 21.6.2010 till 31.7.2010. Probation period of petitioner was not extended and his services were terminated vide order dated 30.7.2010,w.e.f. 31.7.2010. The said order was challenged by petitioner in writ petition. Single Bench dismissed the writ petition, hence this intra court appeal has been filed. Submission of learned counsel for appellant is that appellant was served with charge sheet, for minor penalty under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 1958, the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the basis of his misconduct, therefore without completion of inquiry , the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated. He further submitted that the impugned order dated 30.7.2010, was punitive in nature, which could not have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar reported in (2008)2SCC,479. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for appellant and examined the impugned order passed by Single Bench as well as the order dated 30.7.2010, which was impugned in the writ petition and other documents available on record. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed on probation and his period of probation was extended up to 31.7.2010. From the order dated 30.7.2010, it is clear that it has not been passed on the basis of his so called misconduct but his services have been terminated simplicitor w.e.f. 31./7.2010. This order shows that probation period of the petitioner was not extended. The reason must be that the conduct of petitioner during the probation period was not satisfactory . If probation period has not been extended for the reason that conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory, the said order can not be said to be punitive in nature. Under these circumstances,there was no requirement of giving a notice to the petitioner. The judgment of the Apex Court in Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan(supra) was considered by Single Bench also. We have also considered it. The said judgment is distinguishable on facts and the same can not be said to be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Sukhwinder Singh reported in (2005)5SCC 569, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that probation period gives the employer time and opportunity to watch the probationer's performance and to dispense with his service for want of suitability for the post. The conduct of the petitioner/appellant was not satisfactory during his probation period and the said fact is clear from the documents annexed by the petitioner himself along with the petition. Learned Single Judge has assigned cogent reasons for dismissal of the writ petition. We find that reasons assigned by learned Single Judge are absolutely legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for, in this intra court appeal. In view of above, we find no merit in this intra court appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. The stay application is also dismissed. ;