ORDER

1. The appellants have challenged an order passed by the High Court by which it had set aside the order discharging the respondent from probationary service under the appellants.

2. The respondent was appointed in 1992 as a temporary constable and was kept on probation. He was sent for training to the training centre where he absented himself on several occasions. On the ground that he had absented himself unauthorisedly on fourteen different occasions from the training centre, an order of discharge was passed on 5 - 11 - 1993, under Rule 10 of the Recruitment Rules for Constables, 1992 (for short "the Rules") discharging him from service with the appellants.

3. Impugning the order of discharge, the respondent approached the State Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal rejected the application. The respondent then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that Rule 10 of the Rules did not apply in the facts of the case. It was also of the view that the statement, quoted below, in the order of discharge casts a stigma on the respondent. Since no opportunity of hearing