THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24258 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Principal by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, respondent No.2 herein, for its institution at NIRD Campus, respondent No.4 herein, on 06.10.2009. Through letter, dated 09.09.2010, respondent No.2 terminated the services of the petitioner in terms of Clause 9 (a) of the order of appointment. Salary for a period of one month in lieu of notice period was offered. The petitioner challenges the termination letter. Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had an excellent academic career, so much so, the Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development had issued a letter of appreciation on 30.07.2010 and vast number of parents have expressed their view that the institution has recorded phenomenal progress ever since he assumed charge. He contends that the impugned letter is violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to settled principles of law. The petitioner was appointed as Principal of the institution vide proceedings, dated 06.10.2009. Clause 3 of the order of appointment mentioned that the petitioner is on probation at the first instance for a period of one year and the same is liable to be extended from the date of his assuming duty. Clause 9 provided for the mode of termination of service at the instance of the petitioner or his employer. It is not in dispute that the petitioner came to be terminated during his probation period. Clause 9 of the order of appointment was also complied with inasmuch as one month salary was offered. Discontinuing an employee during the period of probation can not at all be treated as a measure of punishment. It does not cast any aspersion as to the ability and efficiency of the employee. Further, the employer would not be under obligation to conduct enquiry or to justify his action. It is only when any stigma is attached to the petitioner that the necessity to conduct enquiry would arise. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the order of termination shall not be treated as casting any aspersion or doubting the integrity of the petitioner while in service of the institution. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 29.09.2010. kdl