ORDER Pandey, J. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to call up and quash by certiorari an order dated December 17, 1969 by which the service of the Petitioner, who was appointed as an Excise Sub-Inspector on probation, was terminated. The Petitioner has further prayed for a direction that he should be reinstated in service and paid his full salary from the date on which his service was terminated. The main facts of the case on which this petition is founded are not in contest and may be shortly stated. By an order dated January 16, 1964, the Petitioner, who was serving as a clerk in the office of the District Excise Officer, Raigarh, was appointed as an Excise Sub-Inspector on probation for two years with effect from February 1, 1964. In due course, the Petitioner joined the training classes at Gwalior on February 1, 1964, completed his training there and was thereafter posted in Surguja district where he was given practical training. Following this, he worked as an Excise Sub-Inspector at several places. The last place he worked was at Bilaspur where he received an order of transfer to Chhatarpur. He, however, did not go to Chhatarpur and succeeded in getting his transfer postponed by four months. It was alleged that, thereafter, while the Petitioner was at Bilaspur, he did not obey the orders of his immediate superiors, namely, the District Excise Officer, Bilaspur, and the Collector of Bilaspur. It was then that the impugned order dated December 17, 1969 was passed. In the return filed on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 4, the order dated December 17, 1969 was sought to be justified on the ground that it was a simple order of termination which attached no stigma to the Petitioner, that the Petitioner continued to be a probationer notwithstanding that the period of probation had expired, that the Petitioner could not be regarded as having been confirmed without an express order of confirmation and that the termination of his service was not only legal but was also justi6ed on the ground that, in view of his behaviour, his continued retention in the service would have injuriously affected the discipline in the department. Having heard the counsel, we have formed the opinion that this petition must be allowed. Having heard the counsel, we have formed the opinion that this petition must be allowed. It is not disputed before us by the Petitioner's counsel that if the Petitioner had continued to be on probation, the order dated December 17, 1969 could not be challenged as offending the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution or being contrary to the service Rules. It is, however submitted that the Petitioner should be regarded as a confirmed civil servant and that the termination of his service without holding a departmental enquiry amounts to dismissal offending Article 311(2) of the Constitution. As we would show immediately, there is much force in this submission. As we have indicated earlier, the Petitioner was appointed as an Excise Sub-Inspector on probation for two years and he joined his duties on February 1, 1964. That period of probation expired on January 31, 1966. It appears that this period of probation was subsequently extended. The last order of such extension, a copy of which was filed in this case on January 20, 1971 is dated September 1, 1969. By that order, the period of probation of the Petitioner was extended upto May 31,1970. This is not, therefore, a case where the period of probation of the civil servant had simply expired and was not extended. To such a case, the Note below Rule 8 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, does not apply. As held by this Court in Raghuwansh Kumar v. State of M. P.1, to a case like this, Sub-rule (6) of the aforesaid Rule 8 applies. That sub-rule reads as follows:- (6) On the successful completion of probation and the passing of the prescribed departmental examinations, the probationer shall be confirmed in the service or post to which he has been appointed. It is not disputed before us that the Petitioner had successfully completed the period of probation and had also passed all his departmental examinations. Therefore, as held in Raghuwansh Kumar v. State of M. P. (supra), the Petitioner must be deemed to have been confirmed on his post. In view of this position, his service cannot be terminated without holding a departmental enquiry in accordance with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Since this was admittedly not done, the order dated December 17, 1969 is illegal and cannot be sustained. In view of this position, his service cannot be terminated without holding a departmental enquiry in accordance with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Since this was admittedly not done, the order dated December 17, 1969 is illegal and cannot be sustained. Indeed, in view of the decision of this Court in Raghuwansh Kumar v. State of M. P. (supra), the learned Government Advocate rightly conceded that this is so. The result is that this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated December 17, 1969 is quashed with the consequence that the Petitioner will be regarded as continuing in service, but nothing that we have said in this order will preclude the Respondents from taking against the Petitioner such action according to law as they consider necessary for any service delinquency. The Respondents shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Petitioner to whom the security amount shall be refunded. Hearing fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed