Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.I Khan, for the respondents and perused the record.

2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally heard and decided at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

3. The petitioners is aggrieved by the order dated 10.9.2008 which though apparently states that the same is being passed under Rule 8(5) of "The Cantonment Fund Servant Rules, 1937" (hereinafter referred to as 1937 Rules') but as a matter of fact is an order of punishment of removal or dismissal which is a punishment under Rule 11 and that too without holding any enquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 12 of 1937 Rules.

4. The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner is appointed by order dated 24.1.2003 on probation for a period of six months Rule 6 provides that probation is liable to be extended but this is an admitted position that no specific order of extension was ever passed by the authority concerned. Be that as it may, it is admitted that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.7.2008 for certain misconduct and the petitioner submitt