ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22-7-1992 passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in WP No. 4651 of 1992. Respondent 1 (hereinafter to be referred to as the respondent) was given a temporary appointment as a Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police Force. There is no dispute that such temporary appointment had been given on 1-5-1982 and the respondent continued without being confirmed till his service was terminated on 4-11-1987.

3. The order of termination of service was challenged by the respondent before the Services Tribunal of U.P. under the provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975. The Tribunal inter alia came to the finding that the order of termination was passed as a penal measure without following the procedure of disciplinary proceeding and accordingly set aside the order of termination. The said order was thereafter challenged in the writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. By the impugned judgment, the writ petition has been dismissed.

4. It is the case of the appellants that the respondent was given a temporary appointment hut although he continued to remain in such temporary service for a few years, the continuance in service was not found suitable. As a matter of fact, there was a complaint from the Officer-Incharge, P. S. Kotwali Farrukhabad alleging that the respondent had been keeping company with anti-social elements and he was demanding money from them. Considering the overall performance made by the respondent it was decided that he was not a suitable person to be retained in service by making him permanent. Therefore, his temporary service was terminated on 4-11-1987. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that since the decision of termination of service was not taken for the purpose of imposing penalty but on overall appreciation of the service records and on the basis of the objective assessment of such record, the decision to terminate temporary service was taken and the order of termination was also passed in unexceptional form without attaching any stigma, no exception can be taken against the order of termination. The Tribunal and the High Court erroneously proceeded on the footing that the order of termination was a passed essentially to penalise the respondent without following the procedure for imposing major punishment in a disciplinary proceeding.

5. Such contention, however, has been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and it has been contended that a constable cannot be continued as a probationer for more than four years and a decision about his confirmation had to be taken within that period. In the instant case, although initially the appellants alleged that the respondent absented without proper cause, ultimately it was revealed that the termination order was in fact passed because some complaints were received against the respondent. If on the materials on record, the appointing authority was of the view that the respondent was guilty of misconduct, the appellants could terminate his service only after initiating disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law. Such step not having been taken, the Tribunal has rightly held that the impugned order of termination was not an order of termination simpliciter.

6. We have taken into consideration the respective contentions of the parties and we have also considered the materials on record. It appears to us that simply by completing the period of probation an employee cannot claim to be made permanent until and unless his service record is taken into consideration and a positive decision is taken by the appointing authority for making him permanent. In the instant case, it appears that the records of service of the respondent are not good and if on consideration of such adverse records, a decision to terminate the temporary service of the respondent was taken and the order