IN TI HIGH COURZ KARNAtAKA Al BMIGALE Dated this the 8th day of June 1998 BEFORE IHE HON’BTh !€,JUS’ICE G,C,aHARUKA qRIt PEflION NO.10152 OF 1998 Between: Sri A.K, Lakshmaiah,, 3/0 Hulappa, Ad about +5 years, (Ex. S.D.A., n disclnrged in Munsiff and JTC Court, Molakairnuni,) Rio Salehaili Post, Jagalur Taluk, Chitradurga DiaL ,,, Potitioner, (By Sri K,M,Eswarappa Advocate), And: 1. Tt Registrar, High Court of Karnataka, Bengalore, 2, ahe District and Sessions ud, Chitradua. ,., Responnts, (By Sri G.pi Reddy, AGA). this writ petition is flied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash , ,. .2/— Annexu re—B dated 276—96 passed by reponnt No,2,etc, T his writ pet i tion c:oming on for preliminary }3aring this thy, the Court made the follc,ing:-. ORDER Heard the learned counsel ±br the pettioner 2. his writ petition has been filed inter alia seekig quashing of the order dated 27—696 (Anneire—D), by which the petitioner has been discharged from service. Admittedly the petitioner was working a a Second Divis ion Assistant in the Court of Mtmsiff & JC, Molskalmur, He was still on probation,. The plea tcen is that no reasons have been signed for the discharge in the impugned order, It has also been submitted that no enquiry has been procoedjwith before passing of the impuied order, In my opinion, the submissions are of no consequence in lsw as held by the Sueme Court in the case of GOVERNING COUIL OF K IAI MEMORIAL INSII lUJE OF ONCOlOGY, BANGAL ORE v, Dr,PANDURANG GOThIALKAR & ANOLHER repted in , e • AIR 1993 SC 392. In para’aph S of the said Judgement it has been beld thus: 8, Even if such employee while question ing the validity of an order of terminat ion simpliciter brings on the record that some preliminary enquiry or examination of s allegations had been made, tnt will not vitiate the order of ternination, Reference in this connection may be mde to the case of Oil and Natural Gas Conunission v.. Dr.Mohd,. S. Iskender Au, (1980) 3 sCR 603:(AIR 1980 SC 1242), where it was pointed out that a is tporary emploe rpointed on pro tion for a particular period “only in order to test wtber his conduct is good and satis factory so that he may 1e retaned. It was also said that ev if miaconduct, neince inefficiency ma e the motive or the influencing factor which inthced the eloyer to termin e the service of t employee which such emplor admittedly had under the teims of the appointmt, ‘uch ., termination cannot be held to be penalty or puni hment, San view haS been re iLer&ted in connection with appointment on te inpor ax or ad boo basis n t he C as as of Ravindra Kuir Misra v UPState HandloomCorpn, Ltd. (1987) Suppl,SCC 739:(AIR 1987 SC 2408); State of Uttar adesh vKausha1 Kishore Shukla, (1991) 1 8CC 69 1: (1991 AiR SOW 793) d Tr iveni Shanar axena v. State of U,P., (1992) 1 J (SC ) 37: (1992 AIR SOW 110) . In ew of the abe Judgnt this writ petition is dsssed sd/ JUDGE — rsk