JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that impugned order dated November 25,1987 (Annexure-VII) passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated November 25, 1987 (Annex-VIII) by which the services of the petitioner were terminated be quashed and set aside and direction be given to respondent to re-instate the petitioner immediately with full back wages and all other consequential benefits. 2. The controversy in this petition is under a narrow campass. 3. Briefly it may be stated that the petitioner applied and was called for interview for job of Warder by interview call dated May 15, 87 (Annexure-1). After due process of selection and interview he was selected on probation for two years and appointed on the post of Warder Wide order dated June 26. 1987 (Annexure-II) During this period of probation the order dated November 25. 1987 (Annexure-VII) was issued by respondent No. 2 Director General-cum-Inspector General of Prisons Rajasthan Jaipur terminating the services of the petitioner and thereafter in obedience to the order mentioned above an order dated November 30 1987 (Annex-VIII) was issued by respondent No. 3 Deputy Superintendent of Jail Pali terminating the service? of the petitioner. 4. It is contended by Shri Narendra Jain learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice whatsoever was given no the petitioner before terminating his services to which he was legally entitled. Since he was appointed on probation for a period of two years it is contended that even though the petitioner was appointed on probation he does not lose his right to get notice of any action that was proposed to be taken against him on whatever ground as his appointment was for two years. 5. It is submitted by Shri L. K. Sharma learned Deputy Government Advocate that in the return filed on behalf of the respondents it has been clearly mentioned in para 8 that the petitioner was appointed on probation of two years and the action of removing him from service was taken against him because he concealed an important fact that a criminal case was pending against him in a Court of Law at the time of his appointment on probation. When this report was received from Deputy Inspector General of Police CID (Intelligence) Rajasthan Jaipur his services were terminated. When this report was received from Deputy Inspector General of Police CID (Intelligence) Rajasthan Jaipur his services were terminated. It is contended that Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Jail Subordinate Rules 19/6 provides that a probationer may be discharged from service during or at the end of the period of probation in case he fails to give satisfaction. It is further contended that the conduct of the petitioner in concealing the material facts warranted his discharge/removal from service. It is also submitted that the respondents have not cast any stigma on the petitioner. Therefore the respondents were well within their rights to discharge the petitioner from service, record. 6. I have heard both the parties and also gone through the documents on:- 7. There is no doubt that Rule 29 of the Rules does authorise to discharge any probationer either during the period of probation or at the end of the period of probation in case he fails to give satisfaction. However the services of the petitioner have not been discharged on this account. The reason given is that since he concealed a material fact regarding pendency of criminal proceedings before he was appointed it was appropriate to discharge him from the services even during the period of probation. Thus Rule 29 obviously is not applicable. 8. It is evident that once an appointment is made even on probation it can be said that a right is accrued to the petitioner and the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice is that before any action is taken against the petitioner a notice should have been given to him stating the reasons for which his services were sought to be terminated so that he had an opportunity to explain the same and thereafter any decision could have been taken by the authorities concerned. 9. I am fortified in my view by decision in case of M. Premanandum Vs. Regional Manager. Region No. 1 State Bank of India Vijaywada and another (1989 Lab. I.C. 1685) in which a similar point came up for consideration. The petitioner in the above petition before entering into service was in judicial custody for an offence even though subsequently he was acquitted by the criminal court. Therefore it was pointed out that action taken by the Bank was not with regard to any unsatisfactory record of service during the period of probation. The petitioner in the above petition before entering into service was in judicial custody for an offence even though subsequently he was acquitted by the criminal court. Therefore it was pointed out that action taken by the Bank was not with regard to any unsatisfactory record of service during the period of probation. It was further observed that even though he was a probationer his services cannot be terminated without notice. 10. I am therefore of the opinion that except for valid reasons before terminating the probation on the ground of previous conduct the petitioner is entitled to a notice and an enquiry is to be made and reasonable opportunity is to be given for this purpose 11. In this view of the matter the order dated November 30 1987 (Annexure-8) and order dated November 25. 1987 (Annexure-7) terminating the services of the petitioner are set aside and the Petitioner by reinstated on his job. He shall be entitled to all back wages and other consequential benefits if any. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to take any action in accordance with law if they desire to do so. 12. It is stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner has already been reinstated after the interim order passed by this Court. 13. The back wages etc. shall be paid to petitioner within 6 weeks as prayed by the learned Deputy Government Advocate. 14. In the result the writ petition is allowed as stated above.Petition allowed. *******