MATHUR, J. - (1.) BY this petition for writ a challenge is given by the petitioner to the order dated 16. 4. 1991 passed by Superintendent of Police, Pali discharging the petitioner from service being found his services unsatisfactory during probation.
(2.) THE facts in brief giving rise to present petition are as follows:- By an order dated 18. 9. 1989 passed by Superintendent of Police, Pali appointment was given to the petitioner to the post of Constable in Rajasthan Police on being selected by a competent selection board constituted under Rajasthan Civil Services (Police Subordinate Service) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1989" ). THE appointment of the petitioner was placed on probation for a period of two years in accordance with Rule 37 of the Rules of 1989. After successful completion of training at Police Training Centre, Kishangarh the petitioner was posted at police lines, Pali by an order dated 10. 12. 1990. THE Superintendent of Police, Pali by order impugned dated 16. 4. 1991 discharged the petitioner from service being the same found not satisfactory during the period of probation. THE order dated 16. 4. 1991 is in vernacular script and the Superintendent of Police used the term "nishkashit (DISMISS)" while discharging the petitioner from service. The petitioner has given challenge to the order impugned dated 16. 4. 1991 on following grounds:- (1) According to Rule 39 of the Rules of 1989 the petitioner shall be eligible for confirmation at the end of probation period, as such appointing authority is required to assess service of an employee on probation only on completion of the period of probation and not before it. The appointing authority in the present case discharged the petitioner before the end of period of probation without having any occasion to assess and evaluate the services rendered by him. Thus the discharge of petitioner during period of probation is illegal. (2) The order dated 16. 4. 1991 is liable to be quashed being an out come of certain findings arrived at behind the back of the petitioner and those findings are foundation of the order impugned. No such order could have been passed without holding an inquiry as provided under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules of 1958" ). (3) The order passed by the appointing authority is an order of dismissal and not of discharge simplicitor as the appointing authority used the term "dismiss" in the order impugned. Dismissal is a punishment and the same is liable to be quashed as the severest punishment provided under the Rules of 1958 has been imposed in violation of provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and without holding proceedings required under the Rules of 1958. On behalf of the respondents a reply to the writ petition has been filed. It is contended by the respondents that services of the petitioner were not at all satisfactory during the period of probation. He was negligent in duties and was in habit of remaining absent from duties. The petitioner during his short service tenure remained absent from duties for 83 days, details of which mentioned in reply to the writ petition are as under:- " i. from 11. 6. 1990 to 13. 6. 1990 3 days. ii. on 22. 9. 1990 1 day. iii. from 20. 12. 1990 to 31. 12. 1990 12 days. iv. from 18. 1. 1991 to 19. 2. 1991 33 days. v. from 23. 2. 1991 to 22. 3. 1991 28 days. vi. from 25. 3. 1991 to 26. 3. 1991 1 day. vii. from 30. 3. 1991 to 3. 4. 1991 5 days. The respondents have contended that after general assessment of the services rendered by the petitioner the appointing authority considered it appropriate to discharge the petitioner from service being unsatisfactory. The respondents have also placed on record various documents whereby the officer supervising the petitioner's services conveyed about unsatisfactory working and habit of petitioner with regard to remaining absent from duties without permission. No rejoinder to the reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties. The first contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Rule 39 of the Rules of 1989 the services of the petitioner could have not been discontinued during the period of probation. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that under Rule 39 of the Rules of 1989 the appointing authority is required to assess services rendered by a probationer at the end of probation period and not prior to it. The appointing authority in present case assessed service rendered by the petitioner prior to end of probation period which is not permissible under the Rules of 1989 and the same makes the order impugned illegal and liable to be quashed. I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. A probationer has no right to hold the post and his services can be terminated at any time during or at the end of period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post he is holding. ;