The mere expiration of a probation period does not automatically confer confirmation; punitive actions require adherence to procedural safeguards under Article 311.

1. This is an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution and quashing two orders of the Government dated 13th August, 1957, and 1st December, 1958.

2. The respondent was in the service of the appellant as a permanent Naib Tahsildar. On 30th April, 1951, he was placed on probation as a Tahsildar in accordance with the rules governing the appointment etc. of Tahsildars. Under R. 12 of the said rules he had to be placed on probation for a period of two years. This period of two years expired on 29th April, 1953. The rules also laid down that a probationer could actually be confirmed at the end of the period of probation if he passed the departmental examination for tahsildars completely, had been reported by his Commissioners to be fit for confirmation and his integrity was unquestionable.
There was also a rule laying down the conditions under which he could be reverted to his substantive appointment. This rule was to the effect that, if it appeared at any time, during or at the end of the period of probation, that a person appointed on probation had not made sufficient use of his opportunities or had failed to pass the departmental examination completely or if he had otherwise failed to give satisfaction, he could be reverted to his substantive appointment.
It appears that early in May 1953, the Accountant General, U. P. reported to the Government that the respondent had drawn double travelling allowance in respect of certain journeys. The Government, by a letter dated 24th June, 1953, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Hardoi, to make an inquiry into the matter after taking an explanation from the petitioner - respondent. This inquiry was made and a report was sent to the Government through the Board of Revenue. Thereafter the Government issued a letter dated 3rd September, 1956, in which the Government took notice of the result of the inquiry which showed that the respondent had drawn travelling allowance to which he was not entitled. The direction in that letter addressed to the Land Reforms Commissioner, U. P., Lucknow, was that the respondent (probationary Tahsildar) should be apprised of these grounds and should be given an opportunity to show cause why his probation should not be terminated forthwith. It was stated that his explanation so obtained may be sent at a very early date for the perusal of the Government together with his comments. It appears that, in pursuance of this letter, the respondent was given an opportunity to submit his explanation. That explanation with the comments of the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner of the Division and the Board of Revenue was forwarded to the Government with the letter dated 2nd July, 1957, addressed by the Deputy Land Reforms Commissioner (C), Board of Revenue. U.P., to the Secretary to Government, U. P., Revenue (B) Department. In this letter, it was stated that the Board were not satisfied with the explanation that the respondent had actually performed the journeys for which a second travelling allowance bill was made out, although not on the dates mentioned in the bill. Reasons were given for this view. Ultimately, the Conclusion recorded was that it was the easiest thing for the respondent to say that the bill had been incorrectly prepared by the Ahalmad but, surely, the Ahalmad must have been given the dates, timings, routes and distances by the respondent himself, and, in any case, the respondent must take the entire responsibility for having pockete