JUDGMENT

By a letter dated April 5, 1984, the first respondent was offered the post of Manager (Finance) on the terms and conditions set out therein. The letter of offer says that the first respondent will be placed on probation for one year extendable upto two years at the discretion of the Trust. Pursuant to the said offer, the first respondent joined service on May 16, 1984. He was placed on probation and it appears from the letter of May 15, 1985 that his performance was reported to be below average. He was advised to show improvement in the next six months, by which period his probation was extended. The assessment reports made during this period on December 14, 1984, May/10/13,1985 and October 25, 1985 also disclosed that his performance was not satisfactory and, therefore, the Management took the decision to terminate his service by the order of October 29, 1985 which reads as under:

"Shri T.B.K. Patra, Manager (Finance) on probation attached to Calcutta Regional Office would cease to be in the employment of the Trust with effect from close of business on November 15,1985."

It appears from the plain reading of this order that it is an order of discharge simplicitor attaching no stigma whatsoever. It also appears from the office note which was prepared prior to the making of this order that the Deputy General Manager (Personnel and Administration) found that the work of the first respondent was reported to be unsatisfactory and hence he was not recommended for confirmation. This decision was based on the confidential reports called for assessing the suitability of the first respondent. On the basis of the note which was produced at the behest of the first respondent, a further note dated October 28, 1985 was put up recommending termination of his service on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. This note was approved by the Chairman of the appellant Trust also. As stated above, this note was based on the earlier assessment reports made by different officers of the Trust.

2 The first respondent challenged the order of termination of his service by a Writ Petition filed in the High Court of Calcutta. A learned Single Judge upheld his challenge on the ground that the impugned order was stigmatic in character and this was confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court The appellant-Trust feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfaction with this order has moved this Court by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.

3 We have extracted the order of termination passed against the first respondent on October 29, 1985 which is ex-facie an order of discharge simplicitor. It is evident from the facts placed record that as the performance of the first respondent was not found to be satisfactory, he informed about the same by the letter of May 1 1985 with a view to giving him an opportunity to show improvement. The probation periodwas, therefore, extended by another six months to enable him to do so. Unfortunately, the subsequent assessment report shows tha the did not show any improvement in performance and was not suited for the job and hence the Management was constrained to terminate his services. The first respondent contends before us that the impugned order is penal and stigmatic in character and springs from bias on the part of officers of the appellant Trust. In support of this contention he has placed reliance on the case law which was placed before the High Court. We have carefully considered this submission of the first respondent but we are afraid, we do not find any material on record to conclude that the impugned order smacks of bias or is in anyway mala fide. As stated earlier, from the language of the order, we do not think that any stigma attaches to the first respondent. In fact, the Management showed sensitivity in not stating the reason for termination of service but in order that the first respondent may know the reason for termination, the same was separately communicated to him by confidential