Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 1955 of 1970. Appeal by Special Leave from the judgement & other dated the 5th November	 1969 of the Punjab & Harayana High Court in Civil Write No. 309 of 1969. R. K. Garg	 section C. Agarwala and V. J. Francis	 for the appellant. 775 V. C. Mahajan and 0. P. Shorma	 for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY	 C.J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 5 November	 1969 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The only person is whether the order of termination of the service of the appellant who was a probationer is in violation of Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules	 1952. The appellant was selected by the Public Service Commission as a direct recruit on 20 May	 1965. He was appointed on 26 May	 ' 1965. He joined as a probationer. The period of probation was two years. Rule 8(b) of the Punjab Police Service Rules 1959 states that the services of a member recruited by direct appointment may be dispensed with by the Government on his failing to pass the final examination at the end of his period of training	 or on his being reported on during or at the end of his period of probation	 as unfit for appointment. The order terminating the services of the appellant was as follows: The President of India is pleased to dispense with the service of Shri Hari Singh Mann	 Probationery Deputy Superintendent of Police	 Amritsar on the expiry of his extended period of probation with effect from 2 2 1969(A.N.) under rule 8(b) of the Punjab Police Service Rules 1959	 having considered him unfit for appointment to the State Police Service. The period from 20 5 68 to 2 8 68 which has been treated as leave of the kind due has been excluded from the period of trial (Probation). " The two contentions which have been advanced before the High Court were repeated here. First	 the order of termination was passed on 30 January	 1969 when the petitioner by reason of expiry of three years stood confirmed on 19/20 November	 1968. Second the order of termination was one of punishment and the appellant should	therefore	 under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules have been given opportunity to show cause against the order of termination. Under the aforesaid (Police Service) Rule 8(b) proviso	 the Government could extend the period of probation by not more than one year. The appellant was appointed on 20 May	 1965 on two years probation. On 1 July	 1967	 there was an order extending the period of probation by one year. On 20 May	 1968	 there was an order terminating the services of the petitioner. on 20 July. 1968 there was an order revoking the order of termination and extending the period of probation for six months from 20 May	 1968. The order of termination was on 30 January	 1969. The appellant was on leave from 20 May	 1968 to 2 August	 1968. The 776 Government excluded the period of leave from the period of probation. The object of extending the period of probation is to find out whether the appellant was a fit person. The appellant could not be confirmed till the period of probation to find out the fitness of the appellant expired. It cannot therefore be held that the appellant stood confirmed on 19/20 November	 1968 before the period of probation expired in January	 1969. The appellant relied on Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules	 1952. Rule 9 is as follows "Where it is proposed to terminate the employment of a probationer	 whether during or at the end of the period of probation	 for any specific fault or on account of the un satisfactory record or unfavourable reports implying the unsuitability for the service	 the probationer shall be 	apprised of the grounds of such proposal	 and given an opportunity to show cause against it	 before orders are passed by the authority competent to terminate the appointment". If (Punishment) Rule 9 applies the services of the appellant could not be terminated without complying with the previsions thereof. The appellant contended that the order of termination stated that the appellant was considered unfit for appointment and therefore it amounts to punishment to attract rule 9. The appellant extracted a statement from the affidavit of the Inspector General of Police in answer to the appellant 's petition in the High Court that the appellant 's record during the period of probation was unsatisfactory Reliance is placed on rule 9 where it is said that if the termination of the Services of a probationer be on account of unsatisfactory record he shall be given an opportunity to show cause against it. The respondent relied on rule 11 of the Punjab Police Service Rules where it is stated that in matters relating to discipline	 penalties 'and appeals	 members of the Service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. Therefore	 it is said by the respondent that Rules 8 and 11 of the Punjab Police Service Rules show that termination of probation which is dealt with in rule 8 is different from matters relating to penalties which are dealt with in rule II of the Punjab Police Service Rules. Termination on account of unsatisfactory record will attract rule 9 of the Punishment Rules. It is obvious that at the time of confirmation fitness is a matter to be considered. The order terminating the services is unfitness for appointment at the time of confirmation	 it is not passed on the ground of any turpitude like misconduct or inefficiency. To hold that the words "unfit to be appointed" are a Stigma would rob the authorities of the power to judge fitness for work or suitability to the post at the time of confirmation. 777 Termination of services on account of inadequacy for the job or for any temperamental or other defect not involving moral turpitude is not a stigma which can be called discharge by punishment. Fitness for the job is one of the most important reasons for confirmation. The facts and circumstances do not show that there is any stigma attached to the order of termination. For these reasons	 the appeal fails and is dismissed. Parties will pay and bear their own costs. V.M.K. Appeal Dismissed.

The appellant was appointed on 20 May	 1965	 on two years ' probation. On 1 July	 1967 there was an order extending the period of probation by one year. On May 20	 1968	 there was an order terminating the services of the petitioner. On July 20	 1968 there was an order revoking the order of termination and extending the period of probation for six months from 20th May	 1968. The order of termination was on Jan. 30	 1969. This order recited that	 having considered him unfit for appointment to the State Police Service the services of the appellant are dispensed with on the expiry of his extended period of probation. Two contentions were raised by the appellant in the High Court. First	 the order of termination was passed on Jan. 30	 1969	 when the petitioner. by reason of expiry of 3 years stood confirmed on 19/20 November	 1968 and Second	 the order of termination was one of punishment and the appellant should have been given an opportunity to show cause against the order of termination under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules	 1952. These contentions were rejected by the High Court. Hence the appeal to this Court by Special Leave. Dismissing the appeal	 HELD: The object of extending the period of probation is to find out whether the appellant was a fit person. The appellant could not be confirmed	 till the period of probation expired. It cannot	 therefore	 be held that the appellant stood confirmed on 19/20 November	 1968 before the period of probaition expired in January	 1969. [776A B] (2) Termination on account of unsatisfactory record will attract rule 9 of the Punishment Rules. Fitness was a matter to be considered at the time of confirmation. The order terminating the services is unfitness for appointment and not on the ground of any turpitude to attract Rule 9 of the Punishment Rules	 1952. To hold that the words "unfit to be appointed" mentioned in the order of termination	 are a stigma	 would deprive the authorities to judge fitness 'for work or suitability to a post at the time of confirmation. Termination of services on account of inadequacy for the job or for any tompramental or other defect not involving moral turpitude is not a stigma which can be called discharge by punishment. Fitness for the job is one. of the most important reasons for confirmation. The facts and circumstances do not show that there was any stigma attached to the order of termination and therefore	 Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules	 1952 is not attracted in the present case. [7760 777B]