Judgment

SINGH, J. :- Special leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 9-12-1986 dismissing the appellants writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 30-12-1986 dispensing with the appellants services as Addl. District and Sessions Judge in terms of R. 10(3) of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963.

3. Initially, the appellant was an advocate practising law in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. He was selected for appointment to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service by the High Court. On the recommendation of the High Court the State Government by its order dated 14-4-1983 appointed the appellant as Addl. District and Sessions Judge on probation for a period of two years in accordance with R. 10(1) of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules 1963, as adopted by the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The High Court by its order dated 27-4-1983 posted the appellant to Hissar as Addl. District and Sessions Judge where he joined his duties on 2-5-1983. While he was posted at Hissar certain incidents took place as a result of which the Bar Association of Hissar passed a resolution against the appellant and as a result of which he was transferred from Hissar to Narnaul as Addl. District and Sessions Judge where he assumed charge of his office on 5-5-1984. While the appellant was posted at Narnaul inquiry into certain complaints against him was held by a Judge of the High Court. After the inquiry the High Court at its meeting held on 21-3-1985 resolved that the appellants work and conduct was not satisfactory during his probationary period and as such his services deserved to be dispensed with forthwith. The High Court forwarded its recommendation for terminating the appellants services to the State Government by its letter dated 28-3-1985. Before the State Government could issue any orders, the appellant filed a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution before this Court challenging the High Courts decision. On 14-4-1986 this Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the petition with liberty to file the same before the High Court. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the resolution of the High Court as well as certain other consequential orders to which reference shall be made at a later stage, A Division Bench of the High Court by its elaborate order dated 9-12-1986 dismissed the writ petition on the findings that the appellants work and conduct was not satisfactory and as he was on probation his services were rightly terminated without giving any opportunity to the appellant. Thereafter, the State Government pursuant to the recommendation of the High Court issued orders on 30-12-1986 terminating the appellants services in accordance with R. 10(3). Aggrieved the appellant has challenged the order of the High Court under appeal as well as the order of the State Government terminating his services.

4. Before the High Court the appellant laid main stress on the question that the order of termination which had been passed without holding an enquiry giving reasonable opportunity to him to defend himself was violative of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution as the same was based on a number of complaints and allegations as well as the report of a Judge of the High Court who had made inquiries into the complaints against the appellant. The High Court considered the question in detail and recorded its finding that since the appellant was a probationer his services could be discharged without giving any opportunity to him in accordance with the Rules. The High Court further held that the inquiry which was held by a Judge of the High Court was not for the purpose of taking any disciplinary proceedings or imposing any punishment on the appellant; instead, the inquiry was held to find out the appellants suitability to the service. Shri P. P. Rao, learned