U. C. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this petition the petitioner, who was a Sachiv in a Co-operative Society, has challenged the order of termination of his services, dated August 17, 1983. As provided, a selection was held in accordance with the relevant Rules and the petitioner was appointed ag sachiv on a clear vacancy on a substantive post on October 11, 1977 by the district Administrative Committee Since the petitioner was appointed by direct recruitment, the probation period of two years as provided in Rule 27 of the relevant Rules was never extended and the petitioner continues regularly in the service since 1977 without any break. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that before the passing of the impugned order of termination referred to above, the petitioner who was a confirmed employee and his services having been approved by the cadre Authority and the petitioner having been serving since 1977, the petitioners services could not be dispensed with on one months notice and one months pay unless disciplinary proceedings are initiated and petitioner is found guilty and opportunity is afforded to the petitioner. ( 3 ) IN the above writ petition reference of certain cases which are similar to the instant writ petition have been cited. It has been stated in the affidavit, dated May 2, 1988 that the writ petition involving similar question of law i, e. Writ Petition No. 2369 of 1982 (Laxman Nath Kushwaha v Committee of Management and others), was finally allowed and the impugned order was quashed and it was held that tbe termination order was bad and illegal. Another similar Writ Petition No. 3310 of 1982 (Shanti shankar Agnihotri v. District Administrative Committee and others), has also been allowed finally on the basis of the earlier decision mentioned above. Another similar Writ Petition No. 3148 of 1984, (Ram Autar v. District administrative Committee), has also been allowed finally on the same ground. ( 4 ) IT has been urged that the same question arises in this case and the petitioner claims that he was a confirmed employee and his services were terminated after about five years in service and since the maximum probation period is two years and thereafter it cannot be extended further and as such the petitioner attained the status of a permanent employee and be could not be terminated by plain and simple order. ( 5 ) IN the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner was appointed in a regular vacancy in 1977 and thereafter in the routine manner after approval by the cadre Authority he was again given appointment letter on November 2, 1981. It has further been stated that there was some inquiry against the petitioner and it was found that he was not taking interest in his work and in tbe circumstances he was directed to give charge of his post. Thus, it appears from these facts that the impugned order of termination is by way of punishment and that the same was not passed after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Even if it is accepted that the petitioners probation period was not coming to an end. yet as the impugned order of termination cannot be sustained and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. ( 6 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of termination, dated August 17, 1983 is, therefore, quashed. So far as the question of regularisation or confirmation of the petitioners services is concerned, the same shall be done taking into consideration the law laid down in the abovementioned cases. However, no order is made as to costs. Petition allowed. .