Judgment :- 1. The appellant was a temporary Bill Collector of the Feroke Panchayat till dismissal on 3 81961. For the misappropriation of Rs. 71.34, which he remitted only after detection, he was punished by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat on 22121960 with a fine of Rs. 5/-, stoppage of increment for one year and an extension of his period of probation for one year. The Deputy Director of Local Bodies, Calicut, on revision of the above proceedings on 2 81961,"observed that punishment inadequate and directed the Executive Officer to review his proceedings. Subsequently the Executive Officer framed further charges and ultimately passed Ext. P6 order on 3 81961: "An amount of Rs. 371.06 has become time barred by limitation due to the negligence of duty on the part of the Temporary Bill Collector Sri K. Veerasha. An amount of Rs. 205.94 has become impossible for collection since the Bill Collector has collected current taxes and issued receipts for them leaving the above amounts uncollected. It is therefore presumed that the temporary Bill Collector has collected the above amounts also and misappropriated the same. It is also seen from the records that the temporary Bill Collector has been misappropriating the Panchayat funds since 1956. Considering the above facts, and the remarks of the Deputy Director of Local Bodies, Calicut, that the punishments already imposed on the Bill Collector as per this office reference cited above as reference No. 6 for misappropriation of Panchayat funds during his temporary services is inadequate, it is not advisable to entrust the public money any more with the temporary Bill Collector Sri. K. Veerasha. The temporary Bill Collector Sri. K. Veerasha is therefore hereby dismissed from service with effect from the date of this proceedings. An amount of Rs. 371.06 being the time barred items of tax and Rs. 205.94 being the amount remaining collection when the current taxes have been collected by the temporary Bill Collector is hereby ordered to be recovered from the arrears of salary and subsistence allowance due to the temporary Bill Collector and the cash security deposit of Rs. 200/- of the temporary Bill Collector." The appellant then moved O. P. No. 2389 of 1961 before Vaidialingam, J., to quash Ext. P6. The learned judge by his judgment dated 18th May 1962 observed: "12. 200/- of the temporary Bill Collector." The appellant then moved O. P. No. 2389 of 1961 before Vaidialingam, J., to quash Ext. P6. The learned judge by his judgment dated 18th May 1962 observed: "12. Therefore, having due regard to the provisions contained in R.17 and 18 it would be absolutely difficult for the executive authority in this case to sustain the order, Ext. P6, in law as a proper and legal order of dismissal. 13. Therefore, Mr. Velayudhan Nair, learned counsel for the respondent, urged that though Ext. P2 is rather very loosely worded ultimately the intention of the executive authority is very clear, namely that in view of certain very serious allegations that have been made which are referred to in the earlier part of Ext. P2, the executive authority decides to terminate the probation and temporary service of the petitioner. 14. I am prepared to accept this limited contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is only if Ext. P6 is sought to be sustained as an order of dismissal on the basis of findings of misconduct as against the petitioner the petitioner can have any grievance in law. But it is open to the employer to terminate the probation and the temporary service of an employee. Ext. P2 is to be considered only as a notice expressing the intention of the employer to terminate the temporary service and the probation of the petitioner. 16. No doubt, Mr. P. K. Shamsuddin is perfectly justified in his contention when he urges that Ext. P6 purports on the face of it to be nothing but an order of dismissal. But in view of the concession made by Mr. Velayudhan Nair, learned counsel for the respondent, that the said order is not to be treated as an order of dismissal of the petitioner for any allegation of misconduct, the order in my view, can be treated only as terminating the temporary and probationary service of the petitioner. I make it very clear that Ext. P6 is not to be treated or considered as an order of dismissal passed against the petitioner for any misconduct. I also make it clear that the order is only an order terminating the petitioner's temporary service and there is absolutely no stigma attached to the petitioner's career in the Panchayat, whatever suspicion there may be as against his conduct as a Bill Collector. I also make it clear that the order is only an order terminating the petitioner's temporary service and there is absolutely no stigma attached to the petitioner's career in the Panchayat, whatever suspicion there may be as against his conduct as a Bill Collector. 17. I also make it clear that the Executive authority will not be entitled on the basis of Ext. P6 to make or attempt to make any recovery whatsoever of the two amounts mentioned therein (a) Rs. 371.06 and (b) Rs. 205.94 either from the arrears of salary or subsistence allowance due to the petitioner or from the cash security deposit of Rs. 200 stated to have been given by the petitioner. If the executive authority is so advised, it is open to the latter to enforce any claim that may be available to him as against the petitioner in other appropriate legal proceedings. But the direction in Ext. P6 will not by itself clothe that authority with authority to make any such recovery as directed therein. 18 Therefore, to wind up the discussion on this aspect, Ext. P6 cannot be considered to be an order of dismissal passed against the petitioner for misconduct. It is treated only as an order directing the termination of the probation of the petitioner after having given him an opportunity regarding that proposal and the executive authority cannot enforce that order for any other purpose also." 2. It is clear that the order of dismissal was found unsustainable by the learned judge. On such finding, the learned judge ought to have quashed the same; but, instead of doing so, his Lordship has converted the order of dismissal into one of termination of probation. The two orders are entirely different in nature. It is difficult to comprehend how, without even a change of wording, an order for dismissal for misappropriation of public funds could be converted into or be treated as an order for termination of probation without any stigma to the delinquent. The authority to order termination of probation of a Panchayat Bill Collector is not the High Court, but the Executive Officer of the Panchayat. It is not in the province of this Court to substitute its discretion for that of the officer to whom the function is assigned by the law. See Vice Chancellor v. S. K. Ghosh (AIR. 1954 SC. 217). It is not in the province of this Court to substitute its discretion for that of the officer to whom the function is assigned by the law. See Vice Chancellor v. S. K. Ghosh (AIR. 1954 SC. 217). This court may, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution, quash an order found unsustainable in law but must still leave the matter to be ordered by the authority concerned. The order of dismissal, Ext. P6, has been conceded to be unsustainable by counsel before the learned judge, and his Lordship has found it to be so. No ground is made before us to differ therefrom. We therefore quash the order Ext. P6, leaving further proceedings in accordance with the law to the discretion of the Executive Officer concerned. The writ appeal is thus allowed, but we do not order costs here.