JUDGMENT

N. P. SINGH, J.:—This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the High Court, on a writ application filed by the petitioner-respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") quashing the order of termination of the service of the respondent.

2. The respondent was appointed as a Lecturer in Surgical Oncology on 3rd July, 1981. He was to be on probation for a period of one year from the date of his appointment which period could have been extended at the discretion of the competent authority. One of the conditions provided is as follows :-

"Failure to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of the competent authority will render you liable to be discharged from service."

Before the expiry of one year, the impugned order of termination was issued on 30th January, 1982 saying : -

"In accordance with the decision of the Governing Council at its meeting held on 28th January, 1982 the services of Dr. Pandurang Godwalkar, Lecturer in Surgical Oncology (on probation), Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore are terminated with effect from the afternoon of 30th January, 1982, as per Rule 4 of the Conditions of Service Rules (Annexure 2 Chapter I) of the Institute.

He is paid one months salary in lieu of one months notice required as per rules."

3. Although the order under challenge was order of termination simpliciter, the validity thereof was questioned by the respondent on the ground that an order of dismissal had been passed in the garb of an order of termination. According to the respondent, some complaints had been made against him to the Director of the Institute who instead of initiating a departmental proceeding on basis of charges levelled against the respondent, put up the matter before the Governing Council of the Institute for termination of the service of the respondent during the period of probation.

4. The learned Judge in view of the assertions made on behalf of the respondent directed the Institute to produce the original records including certain documents and papers which had been marked as confidential. From the note of the Director it appeared that complaints had been made in respect of performance of the duties by the respondent. In that note it was also mentioned that the respondent was unsympathetic towards the patients. It had also been brought to the notice of the Governing Council that the respondent had attempted to obtain the signatures of some of the patients on the petitions stating that he was a good doctor. On one occasion it was reported that the respondent had taken away a girl on his scooter and brought her back late in the night. The said girl was an attendant to a patient in the hospital. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that as the service of the petitioner had been terminated because of the complaints made against him, it really amounted to his removal, for the misconduct alleged in the note of the Director. According to the learned Judge, the Institute should have initiated a departmental proceeding in respect of the alleged charges and only after due enquiry any action should have been taken.

5. There is no dispute that the service of the respondent had been terminated during the period of probation. The appointment of the respondent was with a clear condition that failure to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of the competent authority shall render him liable to be discharged from the service. Relevant part of Rule 4 of the Conditions of Service Rules is as follows :-

"4. Termination :-

1. All appointments shall be terminable on a notice in writing either by the appointing authority or the employee without assigning any reason as set below :-

a) During the period of probation .......... one month.

b) After completion of the period of probation.........3 months.

c) The notice referred to in rule (1) above shall not be necessary if in lieu thereof an amount equal to the pay and allowance for the period of notice is paid.

.................