Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. Termination of employment during probation, after an enquiry into the employee's suitability for continuation or confirmation, is generally considered a termination simpliciter, provided the enquiry is not into misconduct. Such termination is not stigmatic or punitive (!) (!) .

2. If the enquiry involves misconduct, especially when conducted behind the employee’s back without following principles of natural justice, the termination becomes stigmatic and punitive, which is not permissible. The court can analyze whether the termination is merely simpliciter or stigmatic and punitive (!) .

3. In cases where the enquiry extends beyond assessing suitability and into misconduct, the order of termination is likely to be punitive if it is based on or supported by an investigation that casts a stigma on the employee. Such cases require adherence to natural justice principles, including providing the employee an opportunity to be heard and access to relevant documents (!) (!) (!) .

4. Termination based solely on a complaint or an ex parte enquiry that involves serious allegations of misconduct, without a proper departmental enquiry or framing of charges, is illegal. Natural justice demands that the employee be given a fair opportunity to respond and that a proper enquiry be conducted (!) (!) .

5. The nature of the order—whether it is punitive or simpliciter—depends on the purpose and manner of the enquiry. If the enquiry is conducted to establish misconduct with a view to punishment, the termination is punitive. If it is merely to assess general suitability, it is not punitive. The language of the order alone does not determine its nature; the context and underlying enquiry matter (!) (!) (!) .

6. Orders that explicitly or implicitly cast a stigma on the employee, especially when based on misconduct findings made behind their back, are considered punitive and violate principles of natural justice. Such orders are liable to be set aside (!) (!) .

7. The distinction between a termination that is non-stigmatic and one that is punitive is crucial. Even a seemingly innocuous order may be punitive if it is based on misconduct or involves a behind-the-back enquiry that leads to stigma (!) (!) .

8. In cases involving illegal appointments or misconduct, procedural fairness must be observed. Orders based on ex parte enquiries or reports that contain stigmatic remarks without a proper departmental enquiry are invalid. The employee must be given an opportunity to defend themselves through a proper enquiry process (!) (!) (!) .

9. The court emphasizes that the purpose of an enquiry should be to establish the truth of misconduct, not merely to gather evidence for future action. Orders of termination based on such misconduct findings, especially when conducted without following due process, are liable to be declared punitive and unlawful (!) (!) .

10. Even in cases where the order appears to be innocuous, the court may scrutinize the factual background to determine whether it is punitive in substance, especially if the enquiry involved misconduct or misconduct-like allegations. The absence of a proper enquiry process and the presence of stigma can render an order illegal (!) (!) .

In summary, the legal principles highlight the importance of procedural fairness, the distinction between termination simpliciter and punitive dismissal, and the need for proper enquiry procedures to avoid violations of natural justice, especially when allegations of misconduct are involved.