CR 4883/1998 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K.SHARMA. This writ petition was filed in the year 1998. The order sheet reveals that in spite of granting repeated adjournments, the petitioner did not take any steps. Finally, the writ petition was dismissed for default by order dated 12. 1.2000. Although the writ petition was restored to file, the office note dated 1 2.8.2010 reflects that the petitioner has not taken any steps for service of not ice. Further, the cost of restoration of the writ petition, as was ordered on 2 3.8.2004 was also deposited after 6 (six) years i.e. in June 2010. The above is the conduct of the petitioner in pursuing the writ remedy. On merit, the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the Annexure-3 order dated 27.5.1 997, by which he has been discharged from the training/police service, was un-au thorizedly absent from the training, for which he was selected in the year 1996. Upon such selection, he was to undergo the requisite training for substantial a ppointment. However, after few days, he abandoned the training, on ground of ill ness and as reflected in the impugned order 27.5.1997, he was again given chance to undergo the basic training. On that occasion also, he rem ained absent unauthorizedly. Situated thus and considering the fact that the pe titioner was not yet appointed on substantive basis on completion of the trainin g, the police authority discharged him from training/service by the impugned ord er dated 27.5.1997. Needless to say that the services of an employee during the period of probation could be dispensed with without taking recourse to the regul ar departmental proceeding. Even otherwise also, after long 13 years of dischar ge from service, there is no question of re-instatement of the petitioner in ser vice enabling him to complete the training, which he was to undergo wayback in 1 996-97, but failed. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petit ion and accordingly, it is dismissed.