Judgment

Nanavati, J.-Leave granted.

2. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether services of the respondent, who can be said to have been appointed or probation, could not have been terminated without holding an inquiry. The High Court held that it was necessary to hold an inquiry before coming to the conclusion that he was not suitable or fit for being continued in service and as no such inquiry was held termination of his services was bad.

3. The respondent was appointed as a helper on probation. The appoint­ment letter dated 14.3.1992 stated thus:

“You are appointed for a period of 4 months on probation. If you continue in the service, this period will automatically increase for 4 months. This period will further increase for 3 months if the Man­agement does not give you in writing a letter of your confirmation and during this period or at the end, your services can be terminated without assigning any reason or giving any notice.”

On 13.2.1993 his services were terminated by an order which reads as under:

“You were appointed on probation in the service on 14.3.1992 and you are not found fit to confirm. Therefore, your services are terminated from today