Judgment

PATHAK, J:- This appeal by special leave arises out of a writ petition filed by the appellant in the Gujarat High Court challenging an order terminating his services.

2. The appellant was appointed to the post of Sales Tax Officer by an order dated March 22, 1972. The order recited that the appointment was on probation for a period of two years. The period of two years expired, and the appellant continued in service and no order was made confirming his appointment. On March 31, 1975 the appellants services were terminated.

3. Aggrieved by the termination of his services, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat, but by his judgment and order dated April 21, 1976 a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. An appeal was filed by the appellant, and an Appellate Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated March 28, 1977.

4. Three points have been raised before us in this appeal. The first contention is that the order terminating the appellants services was passed mala fide, the second is that on the expiry of the period of probation the appellant must be deemed to have been confirmed, and inasmuch as his services have been terminated without complying with cl. (2) of Art. 311 the order is invalid. The last contention is that the principles of natural justice were violated inasmuch as on the facts of the present case the appellant, even as a probationer, was entitled to be heard before his services were terminated.

5. On the first contention, the learned Single Judge as well as the Appellate bench examined the material on the record and came concurrently to the conclusion that the allegation of mala fide was without foundation. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the record and has endeavoured to show that the appellant had discharged his duties ably and with integrity, and there was no reason for terminating his services. Various particulars were set forth in the special leave petition filed in this Court in support of that assertion. Now, it appears that substantially the same allegations were set forth by the appellant in his writ petition, but in the affidavit filed in reply by the State Government those allegations were denied. On the contrary, it was asserted that the appellants services were terminated entirely because of his unsatisfactory record and that the order was not vitiated by any illegality or unfairness. In support of the plea of mala fides, the appellant alleged that his services had been terminated because he had taken proceedings against an assessee, Messrs. Shriraj and Company who, according to the appellant, enjoyed political favour and influence with the authorities. The allegation has been denied in the counter-affidavit. During the hearing of the special leave petition this Court directed the State Government to file a specific affidavit relating to the facts alleged in the writ petition regarding a confidential enquiry initiated by the Government. The affidavit filed in reply admits that an enquiry was initiated against the appellant on the complaint of the said assessee, but it maintains that there was no mala fides on the part of the Ministers concerned and that a perusal of the record relating to that enquiry shows that the allegation of mala fides is wholly baseless. We have considered the matter carefully and we find no sufficient reason to differ from the finding of the High Court that the allegation of mala fides is not established. We think it desirable to observe that where a finding of fact has been rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court as a Court of first instance and thereafter affirmed in appeal by an Appellate Bench of that High Court, this Court should be reluctant to interfere with the finding unless there is very strong reason to do so.

6. The second contention on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant must be deemed to have been confirmed inasmuch as he was allowed to continue in