Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The respondent State Bank of India issued an advertisement in August, 2009 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Clerk, the petitioner being eligible applied for the post; appeared in the written examination on 8.11.2009, on qualifying, petitioner appeared in the interview on 26.4.2010, was declared selected. The respondent bank issued appointment letter on 3.12.2010, pursuant thereof, petitioner joined on 20.12.2010 as Assistant Clerk at Branch Dohrighat, District Mau of State Bank of India. Petitioner was sent on training, on successful completion of training petitioner was posted at Gorakhpur by order dated 13.6.2011. The probation period of the petitioner was enhanced by three months for unsatisfactory work. By order dated 27.8.2011, passed by the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Gorakhpur, respondent No. 5, the service of the petitioner was terminated for the reason that some person impersonating himself, appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the written examination.

2. The petitioner is assailing order dated 27.8.2011 passed by respondent No. 5.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given any opportunity or show-cause before passing the impugned order, the order is stigmatic and punitive, the petitioner denied that someone else impersonated the petitioner in the written examination held on 8.11.2009, further, the photographs fixed by the petitioner for the written examination, was the photographs used by the respondents in all the stages of selection.

3. Per Contra Sri S.K. Kakkar, learned counsel appearing for the bank would submit that the facts are not in dispute, however, the petitioner’s appointment was subject to the verification of final records, an undertaking, dated 21.12.2010, was taken that in the event, the documents are found incorrect, the service of the petitioner would stand automatically terminated. On receipt of letter from the Zonal Office, re-verification was done, the bank asked the petitioner to submit two photographs and also provide specimen signature. The Gorakhpur Office of the Bank conducted the verification of the photographs and the signatures, it was found that there was some anomaly, thus, on apprehension of impersonation, the Branch Manager vide letter dated 29th April, 2011 requested the Controlling Authority/Administrative Office, Gorakhpur to get the matter investigated by the appropriate authority. It appears, thereafter, the matter was referred to the hand writing expert for verification of thumb impression/signature of the petitioner on the call letter. The handwriting expert opined that the thumb impression on the call letter does not match the specimen thumb impression of the incumbent i.e. the petitioner. Thus, in view of fraud and misrepresentation, the petitioner’s services was terminated forthwith, being on probationer. It is admitted that no show-cause notice was given to the petitioner, enclosing the report of the handwriting expert, nor any explanation was called from the petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The only question for determination is, as to whether, the impugned order terminating the service of the probationer petitioner is stigmatic and punitive.

Probationer

Mere form of the order using expressions “terminate”, ‘discharge’ etc, is not conclusive and despite the use of such innocuous expressions, the Court can examine the matter to find out the true nature of the order terminating the service of the petitioner. This has been the consistent view of the Supreme Court in several Constitution Bench decisions rendered in Parshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36, State of Bihar v. Gopi Kishore Prashad, AIR 1960 SC 689, Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India and others, 1964 SC 449, Shemsher Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1974(2) SCC 831.

5. Supreme Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Saytendra Nath Bose National Centre for