JUDGMENT

Srikrishna, J.—The core issue in this appeal is whether the discontinuation of the probationer-appellant was for unsatisfactory services or for a misconduct.

2. The respondent is an institution carrying on research in basic sciences. It is common ground that the respondent is funded by the Central Government and, therefore, it is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The appellant was selected for the post of administrative officer and joined service under the first respondent on 10th February 1995. The letter of appointment issued to the petitioner on 7th October 1994 made it clear that the petitioner was being appointed on probation for a period of one year.

4. On 20th November 1995 the appellant was served with a letter informing him that his performance during the probationary period was “far from satisfactory” and that it had been observed that he lacked drive, imagination and initiative `in the performance of his duties’. He was informed that, despite being told time and again to improve performance in the said areas, but with no effect. He was advised to improve “in order to enable u