Markandeya Katju, CJ.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 23.4.2002. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.

2. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer in the service of respondent No.1 vide appointment letter dated 19.2.1986 on probation for one year. The relevant clause in the appointment letter states:

"You will be on probation for a period of one year. You will be eligible for confirmation on successful completion of the period of probation. If at the end of the probationary period no order of confirmation is issued, you will continue to be on probation till you receive the order of confirmation or order of termination."

3. The probation period was extended by another letter dated 8.5.1987 in which it was stated:

"It is reported that the overall performance and conduct of Sri B.S.Chopra during probationary period is found to be unsatisfactory. Although it is open to the Management to terminate the services of Sri B.S.Chopra as per the terms of appointment the Management considers it necessary to afford one more opportunity to him to improve his performance and conduct. Accordingly, his period of probation is extended for a period of six months from 2.3.1997."

4. It appears that on 5.8.1988 a show cause was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause why action be not taken against him on account of certain shortages in cash. However, thereafter no enquiry was held and instead by an order dated 28.9.1988 his service was terminated on the following terms:

"You. Sri B.S.Chopra were appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer vide appointment order No. KHDC.ADM:10-81/23197 dated 19.2.1986 and placed on probation for one year from 2.3.1986. As your overall performance and conduct were found to be unsatisfactory, the probation was further extended for 6 months from 2.3.1987 vide Memo No. KHDC.ADM:173-86/2008 dated 8.5.1987. Inspite of several opportunities given to you, you have not improved your performance. Therefore, you are hereby terminated from the services of the Corporation as per clause (3) of your appointment order referred to above with immediate effect. "

5. The appellant raised an industrial dispute which was decided against him by Labour Court No. III, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi against which he filed a writ petition which was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for appellant has relied on Clause (iii) of Regulation 18 of the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Limited (Staff Regulations), 1979 which states:

"(iii) The period of probation of an employee fixed at the time of his appointment may be extended by the appointing authority unless his services are otherwise terminated within or on the completion of the period of probation stipulated. In no case, shall the period of probation be extended beyond two years."

7. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that since the maximum period of probation of two years expired on 19.2.1988, hence it must be deemed that the appellant was confirmed on 19.2.1988. Therefore, he contends his service could not be terminated without an enquiry after that date. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent relied on Clause (vii) of Regulation 18 which states:-

"(vii) If at the end of the probationary period or extended period of probation, no order of the appointing authority is issued either confirming him or discharging him from service, he will continue to be on probation till he receives order of confirmation or order of termination. Any delay in the issue of an order of confirmation or termination as the case may be shall not entitle the probationer to be deemed to have satisfactorily completed his probation.

8. In The High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Satya Narayan Jhavar 2001 (7) SCC 161 (vid