O R D E R :

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“... declaring the action of the 4th respondent in terminating the probation of the petitioner and discharging him from service vide Rc.No.399/A2/22012 (D.O.No.1146/2012) dated 27.09.2013 without conducting enquiry as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, stigmatic and consequently hold that petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits...”

2) Heard Sri V.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing for the respondents.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Police Constable in the erstwhile VII APSP Battalion (now TSSP Battalion) Dichpally vide proceedings dated 09.10.2009 and was placed on probation for a period of two years on duty within continuous period of three years. While so, the impugned show cause notice dated 24.10.2012 was served upon the petitioner directing him to show cause as to why his probation cannot be terminated alleging that he was unauthorizedly absent for 452 days till 18.12.2012 i.e. during the probation. Learned counsel contends that the number of days portrayed are incorrect and erroneous. With reference to the allegations contained in show cause notice and the impugned termination order, learned counsel submits that in respect of earlier instance of unauthorized absence, the petitioner was inflicted the punishment of censure and postponement of increment for one year without effect on future increments and pension vide proceedings dated 27.10.2011 and 05.02.2012 respectively. Similarly, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for subsequent absence from 12.01.2012 to 20.03.2012 and he was imposed with the punishment of postponement of one increment without cumulative effect. Learned counsel further submits that services of the petitioner were terminated during probation on purported ground of unauthorized absence. The respondents having punished the petitioner for the alleged absence, it is incorrect on the part of respondent No.4 to terminate the services of the petitioner by citing earlier instances, which were already culminated in imposition of punishment of censure and postponement of increment for one year, etc. Once, in an earlier occasion, respondent No.4 deemed it fit to impose the punishment and continue the petitioner in service, it is wholly erroneous on the part of respondent No.4 to terminate the services of the petitioner during the period of probation. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 24.07.2012 in respect of his absence from service w.e.f. 18.01.2012, enquiry was conducted and the punishment of postponement of increment for one year was imposed upon him treating the period of absence as leave without pay. Thus, the learned counsel contends that once the foundation for issuing the show cause notice and the impugned order of termination of probation is on the alleged ground of unauthorized absence, respondent No.4 ought not have conducted an enquiry into the alleged unauthorized absence from 26.07.2012 to 07.08.2012 and 24.09.2012 to 26.09.2012. Further, respondent No.4 ought not have taken into consideration the earlier instances of absence while passing the impugned order that too after regulating the period of alleged absence as leave without pay. Therefore, respondent No.3 has committed an error apparent on the face of the record by taking into consideration the earlier record. Though, respondent No.4 has attributed unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner during the probation period and relied upon his past conduct, he ought to have directed to conduct departmental enquiry. The form of the order terminating the services coupled with background facts clearly lead to the conclusion that the impugned order is punitive in nature and stigmatic. Learned counsel further submits that the pet