NareshH. Patil, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner's contention is that he was appointed on probation for a period of two years on 30th August, 2012 on the post of Dy. Director, (Administration and Finance) by the respondents 1 and 2.

3. An exhibition was organized by Grahak Panchayat at Goregaon between the period 28th September, 2013 to 30th September, 2013. The petitioner was deputed to attend the said exhibition at Goregaon. He was entitled to claim TA in respect of his expenses incurred on traveling starting from his home and ending upto his home, since the same being official holiday in the department of Bureau of Indian Standard. From 28th September, 2013 he was deputed to attend office and then attend the exhibition center. The petitioner had put in six months service but on 16th April, 2014 he received a memo alleging that (i) he had submitted a false TA/DA claim despite using his staff car vehicle on 28th September, 2013. (ii) he lacks confidence (iii) his performance has not been proved. The petitioner was asked to submit a reply within 10 days from the date of receipt of the memo. On 9th May, 2014 the petitioner submitted his reply and expressed his regret about the issues raised in the memo and assure that he will do his best in future. On 30th June, 2014 though he was assured that no damage will be caused to him or his service, the petitioner was served with an order of termination of his services with immediate effect. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the termination was simplicitor but it was stigmatic and punitive in nature.

4. Consequent to the notice issued, the respondent filed affidavit-in-reply through T.D. Gadgil, Scientist. The deponent contends that the work and conduct of the petitioner was adversely criticized by his superior officer namely Dy. Director General (West) in his confidential note dated 26th February, 2014 which was addressed to the Director General, the appointing authority of the petitioner. It was reported that the petitioner was not competent to independently deal with an issue and was killing time by simply passing papers to subordinates and thus found no value addition after his joining service. It was opined that petitioner failed to improve his performance as well as to communicate in English language. It was reported that petitioner tries to manipulate TA/DA claims. The deponent further submits that investigation was made on the TA/DA claim made by the petitioner in the month of September, 2013. Thus, the petitioner's Controlling officer namely DDGW has found him of no use for the job. It is the contention that petitioner's 'unsuitability' was the reason and not the wrong claim of T.A.

5. The deponent further submits that petitioner did not exhaust option to apply to Executive committee of BIS before approaching the Court for legal redressal. The petitioner's performance did not improve during his tenure of working for more than one and half years, inspite of repeated advises verbal and in writing. The deponent had referred to some of the issues which had come to the notice, in paragraph 10 as under:

1) Recovery of Rs. 5500/- on late payment of TDS.

2) Approval of expenses not permitted.

3) Lack of supervision (Exhibit 9-A).

4) Claim made for the journey for which he did not spend any money.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order though termed as discharge simplicitor is stigmatic, punitive in nature. The affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondents confirms the submissions of the petitioner as respondents have also placed reliance on the alleged material and allegations appearing on record against the petitioner which was the foundation for passing an order of discharge simplicitor. It was submitted that in lieu of affidavit-in-reply filed it is very clear that the issues like submission of TA/DA bill was made matter of enquiry on which expla