CWP No. 10279 of 1989 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 10279 of 1989 Date of decision: September 8, 2008 Thakur Singh ..Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Mahesh Dhir, Advocate for the respondents. .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force on 6.5.1986. His services were terminated on 22.12.1988 vide Annexure P-1 under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services(Temporary services)Rules, 1965. The petitioner has challenged the said termination order being illegal and arbitrary. He has also prayed for regularization of his services after setting aside the said termination order. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing written statement stating therein that though there was a complaint against the petitioner which was inquired into and after giving him an opportunity to explain his conduct, it was decided to terminate his services under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services(Temporary services)Rules, 1965, which is a simple order of termination of services and does not attach any stigma. It is further stated in the written statement that the termination of services under Central Civil Services(Temporary services)Rules amount to termination of service contract between employer and the employee and is not at all a penalty of dismissal as misunderstood by the petitioner and does not carry any stigma on the career of the petitioner. It is also stated in the written statement that the impugned order Annexure P-1 is appealable to the DIG, Central Reserve Police Force, Srinagar CWP No. 10279 of 1989 2 Range being the appellate authority. The petitioner has not filed any such appeal to this authority. Thus in these circumstances, it has been prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. From the stand taken by the respondents, it is crystal clear that the impugned order is an order of termination simpliciter without attaching any stigma on the career of the petitioner. Therefore, the same cannot be termed as a penalty. The petitioner has not given any plausible reason for not approaching the appellate authority. In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. September 8, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE