JUDGMENT : N.H. BHATT, J. 1. This is a petition by a Government servant appointed as a Stenographer Gd. II on 17.12.1978, on his having been selected by the Gujarat Pubic Service commission. His services were then placed at the Sachivalaya in the Industries, Mines and Power Department. Then came to be issued on 2.4.1979 the order of termination his services, which when translated reads as follows:- "The services of Shri N.M. Khan (the petitioner), Stenographer Gd. II of this department, are terminated before office hours on 2.4.1979." 2. The petitioner has challenged this order, as the order of termination of his services and a penal order passed without following the requisite procedural guidelines. 3. At the stage of admission, a notice was issued and affidavit-in-reply was filed, which has been adopted even for the purpose of this final hearing. The affidavit states that the petitioner had joined as a Stenographer, Gd. II on 23.2.1978 and then was on leave from 6.4.1978 to 5.7.1978 from 10.7.1978 to 24.11.1978 and then was absent from duties from 27.11.1978 to 3.12.1978. It was further alleged that after reporting on 4.12.1978, the petitioner again went on leave from 5.12.1978 to 8.12.1978 and remained absent till 9.1.1979. Thereafter, he had continued his irregular attendance by either going on casual leave or without pay. The affidavit then proceeded to state as follows: "It was in the background and context of this constitutionally irregular performance of the petitioner, who did not even care the time to report, the service of the petitioner were not found even satisfactory. The impugned order was therefore passed on 2.4.1979." 4. It was only at this stage that an attempt was made to show that the petitioner's services being found not satisfactory, were put an end to during the period of probation. Affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to show that for various periods complained of the affidavit-in-reply, he had been granted various leave and the total number of days of sanctioned leave comes to 224 days. 5. The impugned order deserves to be set aside on the short ground that ex-facie the order appears to be penal and does not speak of the services having been put an end to, because of performance being found unsatisfactory. 5. The impugned order deserves to be set aside on the short ground that ex-facie the order appears to be penal and does not speak of the services having been put an end to, because of performance being found unsatisfactory. Quite often we come across orders passed by experienced officers of the Sachivalaya, from which we can say that if the services are terminated because of the unsatisfactory performance during probation any, they invariably mention that fact expressly. It appears that because of this long spell of leave enjoined by him and because of his alleged sickness, which he has asserted and which has not been controverted, he was not regular in attendance. His services have been put an end to on the ground of his irregular attendance and his prolonged leave period. It, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, can be said to be a penal order passed because of his alleged proceeding on leave at times without prior permission and at times after getting leave sanctioned some time after the period of absence. 6. On the above short ground, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service. Mr. Anand at this stage volunteered under clear instructions of his client that on his reinstatement, the petitioner would not claim any back wages and so it is ordered that his reinstatement is to be effected without payment of any back wages to him. Reinstatement pre-supposes continuity of service, it is clarified by way of abundant caution Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. Petition accepted.