IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6045 of 2011 Date of Decision : April 05, 2011. Tansen .....Petitioner versus High Court of Punjab & Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Manohar Lall, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as a Process Server in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated 26th March, 2008 and was kept on probation for a period of two years. The probation period of the petitioner was further extended for one year vide order dated 8.2.2010. It is not in dispute that the petitioner alongwith two other Process Servers were assigned the duties of Chokidars in the Judicial Court Complex Ambala when a theft took place resulting into loss of Rs.7,48,138/-. The petitioner's explanation was sought through a show cause notice to which he submitted his reply. The District and Sessions Judge, C.W.P.No .6045 of 2011 2 Ambala, thereafter, vide order dated 22.6.2010 dispensed with the services of the petitioner “during the probation period”. The petitioner preferred service appeal which has also been turned down by the Administrative Judge of Ambala Sessions Division by passing a self-speaking order dated 24.12.2010. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. Relying upon the decision in Progressive Education Society and another versus Rajendra and another (2008) SCC-310, it is urged that once the foundation of the impugned action is based on a misconduct, it was imperative upon the competent authority to hold an enquiry and prove the said misconduct. In my considered opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, is wholly misconceived. The petitioner was a probationer and his work and conduct was not found to be satisfactory while extending the period of probation for another one year. The incident of theft took place due to negligence and careless performance of duties while a proven misconduct would invite imposition of penalty under the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Mere negligence in performance of duties by a probationer may not always be treated as a misconduct, rather the competent authority will be well within its right to draw an inference of unsatisfactory performance of duties by such a probationer. It is the formation of such an opinion regarding unsatisfactory C.W.P.No .6045 of 2011 3 work and conduct of the petitioner that his services were dispensed with by passing an innocuous order which perse is not stigmatic. No case to interfere with the impugned order by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. Dismissed. April 05, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE