Short Note : 1. The contention of the petitioner is that the order terminating his probation amounts to punishment and as the procedure under Article 311 was not adopted, the order is invalid and void. 2. Rule 25 (2) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959, which relates to probationers enables the appointing authority to terminate the probation, implies that action under the second part of this sub-rule can be taken even during the continuance of the probationary period. The only requirement of sub-rule (2) is that the probationer shall be given an opportunity to submit any representation he may wish to make against the reasons for terminating his probation and the representation submitted by him shall be considered before final order is passed. Held: In our opinion, the action taken against the petitioner was not for punishing him and the procedure laid down under Article 311 was not attracted. The procedure prescribed for terminating the probationary period under Sub-rule (2) of rule 25 was fully followed. The petitioner's probation was terminated because the explanation submitted by him was not found to be satisfactory and the appointing authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner's services were not up to standard required. The mention of the fact that in the opinion of the appointing authority the petitioner's services were not up to the standard, does not cast any stigma on the petitioner. After all, the services of a probationer are terminated on some ground relating to his work and conduct. In Hari Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2263 , it was held by the Supreme Court that the words "unfit to be appointed" as contained in the order terminating the services of a probationer, did not cast any stigma and Article 311 was not attracted. In Bishan Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 363 , the Supreme Court again laid down that there need not be a full departmental trial against a probationer and it is sufficient if the probationer is given ample opportunity to answer in writing whatever was alleged against him in the show cause notice. The order terminating the services of a probationer after such a summary inquiry cannot be held to be punishment. The order terminating the services of a probationer after such a summary inquiry cannot be held to be punishment. Considered in the light of the circumstances of the instant case and the authorities noted above, we are of opinion that the order terminating the services of the petitioner did not amount to punishment. The order is, therefore, not invalid for want of inquiry as required by Article 311 of the Constitution. AIR 1974 SC 2263 and AIR 1978 SC 363 , relied on. Petition dismissed.