RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The present appeal – by an unsuccessful writ petitioner (referred to as “the petitioner”) is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge, dated 20-2-2004, dismissing WP 662/1984.

2. The Petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Junior Technical Assistant. His letter of appointment, dated 17.10.1983, stated that:

“(iii) For probation and other terms and conditions his, her services will be governed by the CWC (Staff) Regulations as enforced from time to time.”

3. The Petitioner accepted the letter of offer; consequently, sometime in December, 1983, the respondent (hereafter “CWC”) issued an office order appointing him to the post of Junior Technical Assistant. The office order indicated that the petitioner would be “on probation for a period of one year which may be further extended for a period not exceeding one year in all.”

4. By order dated 15June, 1984, the Petitioner was given additional charge of Godown Nos. III and IV in addition to the charge of Godown Nos. I and II, which was already with him. On 28June, 1984, a Memo was issued to him, demanding explanation that some damaged empty burnt tins had been thrown out of the godown by him on 27June, 1984. This Memo, dated 28June 1984 was received by him with second memo dated 2August, 1984 wherein an explanation regarding some allegations was asked from the petitioner. The allegations here were that the petitioner had refused to receive the Zinc Ingots in Godown No. IA to which he gave his reply on 24August denying allegations made in the first Memo. By an order dated 6September 1984, issued by the CWC, the petitioner was placed under suspension initially pending the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. However, none were initiated and the said suspension order was revoked on 16February, 1985. A regular departmental enquiry was thereafter held against Shri P. P. Singh, Superintendent, Central Warehousing Corporation, Patparganj. In the said proceedings against Shri P. P. Singh, the petitioner appeared as a witness and the Enquiry Officer held Shri P. P. Singh guilty in the report and made certain observations qua the working of the petitioner as well.

5. In the meanwhile, a year?s probationary period of the petitioner ended in December, 1984. No formal order was issued extending the probation, nor was one confirming the petitioner?s service, issued by CWC. In this background, after the suspension order was revoked on 16th February, 1985, the CWC, on 22.10.1985 acting under sub Regulation (1) of Regulation 10 CWC (Staff) Regulations 1966, terminated his services. The office order dated 22.10.1985 reads as under:-

“OFFICE ORDER

In terms of the provisions contained in Sub Regulation

(1) of Regulation 10 of Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulation 1966. Shri Prem Kishore, Jr. Tech.Asstt. Central Warehouse. Gurgaon, is hereby terminated from the service of the Corporation with immediate effect in public interest. He is also paid a cheque bearing No. OS-100-922961 dated 18.10.1985 for Rs.1116/-(Rs.one thousand one hundred sixteen only) being the amount equivalent to one month’s pay in lieu of one month’s notice required there-under.”

6. The petitioner represented against termination of his service, but without any success. He challenged the order of termination in the writ petition, filed before this court, urging that as no order was passed extending his probation period, which was initially for a period of one year as per the office order dated December, 1983, he would be deemed to have been confirmed w.e.f. December, 1984. It was argued also, that the termination order was ex facie penal in as much as it cast a stigma upon the petitioner. The words „in public interest’ used in the order of termination would cast aspersion upon the capability of the petitioner and therefore is penal. Alternatively, it was contended that the facts preceding the issuance of the order revealed that what has motivated and w