Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral)

By a stroke of pen, engagement of the petitioner has been brought to an end. Challenging the said action, petitioner went before the Tribunal and lost.

2. In the present writ petition, it is being contended, that:

(i) according to the appointment letter of the petitioner, his probation period was two years, without any indication that the same may be extended and, accordingly, after expiry of two years, petitioner became an employee of the Union of India and, as such, his engagement/ employment could not be brought to an end without complying with the provisions contained in Article 311 of the Constitution of India;

(ii) assuming the period of probation could be extended, but, of the own showing of the respondents, the same could not be extended beyond double the period of probation, i.e. beyond four years, and since the petitioner was appointed on 14th November, 1998, the termination effected on 20th August, 2004 could not be said to have been effected during the probation period; and

(iii) the order of termination contained stigma.

3. We have read the order of termination with great difficulty since the same is in Hindi and we have fou