IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1720 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 08.09.2008 in WPMP.No.29117 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 22418 of 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1. The Union of India, represented by the Addl. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. 2. The Union of India, represented by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. ...Appellants AND Paramjeet Singh, S/o. Raj Singh (GD) No. 0351 422682, RT/GD, O/o the Addl. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellants : MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent : MR.S.SATYAM REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, C.J.) Admit. At the request of the learned Advocates, the appeal is finally heard today. In this appeal, order dated 8th September, 2008 passed in WPMP. No.29117 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.22418 of 2007 has been challenged. By virtue of the impugned interim order, the learned Single Judge has directed that the original petitioner – a probationer – whose service was terminated should be taken back into service. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant – employer has submitted that the respondent – original petitioner was a probationer, and in accordance with the rules and regulations, his service had been terminated after giving him one month’s notice. It has been submitted that the order, whereby his service was terminated, was not penal in nature. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent – employee, has submitted that the service of the respondent could not have been terminated. It has been further submitted that reason for termination has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the appellant – employer. The said fact denotes that the order of termination is penal in nature. Upon hearing the learned Advocates, we find that the respondent – petitioner was a probationer and without assigning any reason, his service had been terminated in accordance with law after giving him one month’s notice. Balance of convenience was not in favour of the respondent-employee because in the event of his succeeding in the petition, he would be compensated in terms of money. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, by virtue of the interim order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. WPMP.No.29117 of 2007 also stands dismissed. Looking to the facts of the case, it is directed that the Registry shall notify Writ Petition No.22418 of 2007 for hearing on 16th February, 2009 as per roster. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 17th December, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. ……REGISTRAR To 1. Two C.D. copies. AJR/ARS