JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved against the order dated June 20,1990 passed by the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, the necessary facts may be given.The petitioner was appointed by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (respondent No. 1) on the post of Line Petrolman vide letter dated Sept. 14, 1989 (Annex-5). The terms and conditions are detailed out in the said appointment letter. For the purposes of this writ petition, conditions no. 2,3,10 and 15 are relevant which are reproduced as under: "2. You will be on probation for a period of six months from the date you report for duty, but the period of probation may be extended or reduced. If your work is found to be satisfactory during the probationary period your service will be continued. 3. Your service will not be regarded as confirmed unless a letter of confirmation to the effect is issued to you. 10. This appointment is subject to your furnishing a good conduct certificate from your previous employer/employers at the time of reporting for duty. 15. The Management reserves the right to terminate your appointment at its absolute discretion, after giving you one month's notice or on payment of one month's wages in lieu of notice. Similarly, you shall be at liberty to resign from the services after giving one month's notice. The power to terminate your services will vest with the Managing Director, General Manager or with such other officer of the Corporation authorised by them or to whom the power in their behalf has been delegated by them either generally or by a special order." Prior to this appointment, the petitioner was working with Central Industrial Security Force (in short C.I.S.F.) and was posted at Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai as Constable. Before joining his duties, the petitioner has submitted 'Attestation Form' with the respondent- Corporation which was duly filled-up and signed by him. The said Attestation Form has been t laced on the record as Annex.'X'. This Form contained the following warning : "(i) The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification, and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Corporation. The said Attestation Form has been t laced on the record as Annex.'X'. This Form contained the following warning : "(i) The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification, and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Corporation. (ii) If detained, arrested, prosecuted, bound down, fined, convicted, debarred, acquitted etc., subsequent to the completion and submission of this form the detail should be communicated immediately to the Corporation failing which it will be deemed to be suppression of factual information (iii) If the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Forms comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated." Then, part-A of the said Form is with regard to personal particulars, Column No.7(a) requires the details to be given by the employee if he had been under employment at any time. Besides other details, this column requires the details about the employer's name and address and reason for leaving the previous service. The petitioner has given the name of the employer as 'C.I.S.F.' and given the reason for leaving the previous employment as, Due to family circumstances', Column No.7(b) of the said Form runs as under: "If the previous employment was under the Government of India, a State Government,an undertaking owned or controlled by Govt. of India or State Govt., an autonomous body, a University, a Local Body; If you had left service on giving a month's notice under rule-5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 or any similar corresponding rules ; were any disciplinary proceeding framed against you or had you been called upon to explain your conduct in any matter at the time you gave notice of termination of service or at a subsequent date, before your services actually terminated?" The reply has been filled-up by the petitioner to the said Column as 'No Please'.It appears that at the time of joining his service, the petitioner did not submit the Discharge Certificate issued by the earlier employer, namely, C.I.S.F. Authority. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to submit the Discharge Certificate from the previous employer vide letter dated Oct. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to submit the Discharge Certificate from the previous employer vide letter dated Oct. 19,1989 (Annex.Z).As per the reply of the respondents, inspite of several reminders sent to him, the petitioner failed to submit the requisite Discharge Certificate and there- fore, the respondent made direct enquiry with the C.I.S.F. Authority and from them it was learnt that the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of disciplinary action for the acts and misconduct. The respondents have further stated that after making the preliminary and proper enquiry the Management found that the petitioner had furnished false information and suppressed correct facts as such he was rendered unfit to be retained in the employment and consequently, the order dated June 20, 1990 was passed dispensing with his services. The respondents have filed the copies of the letters/reminders calling upon the petitioner to submit Discharge Certificate. The respondents have also filed the Discharge Certificate issued by the C.I.S.F. Authority which was obtained by them directly. From the said Discharge Certificates, it appears that he was removed from the services as he was found to have gone at religious place after consuming liquor. It further appears that on enquiry made with the C.I.S.F. Authority, the respondent-Corporation was intimated by it vide letter dated April 26,1990 the reasons for the discharge of the petitioner which have been given out as absence without permission, insubordination and entering the religious place after consuming liquor and creating breach of peace. It further appears that an enquiry was held and thereafter, the services of the petitioner was terminated and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed. 3. In the aforesaid background of the facts, the grievance of the petitioner has to be examined.The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted only one argument to the effect that after the expiry of six months probation period , the respondent Corporation did not extend the probation period, as such, the petitioner became a confirmed employee and his services could not have been terminated without charge sheeting and holding an enquiry against him. In this connection, he has placed reliance on Om Prakash Maurya v. U.P. Corporation Sugar Factories Federation, Lucknow and Others, AIR 1986 SC 1844 .On the other hand, Mr. In this connection, he has placed reliance on Om Prakash Maurya v. U.P. Corporation Sugar Factories Federation, Lucknow and Others, AIR 1986 SC 1844 .On the other hand, Mr. Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondents has made two-fold submissions, firstly, that as per the terms and conditions of the service contract (Annex-5), the services of the petitioner did not stand confirmed automatically after the expiry of initial probation period of six months. Secondly, that the petitioner has not only suppressed the relevant material facts but had also furnished false information in the Attestation Form and this fact alone was sufficient to terminate the service and in any case, the petitioner is not entitled for a discretionary relief in his favour on account of his conduct. Mr. Bhatt hal placed reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Veerappa R. Saboji and Another, AIR 1980 S.C. 965 , Commodore Commanding Southern Naval Area v. N. Rajan, AIR 1981 S.C. 965 and Rasiklal Vaghaji Bhai Patel v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn., AIR 1985 SC 504 . 4. Mr. Bhatt hal placed reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Veerappa R. Saboji and Another, AIR 1980 S.C. 965 , Commodore Commanding Southern Naval Area v. N. Rajan, AIR 1981 S.C. 965 and Rasiklal Vaghaji Bhai Patel v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn., AIR 1985 SC 504 . 4. From the material placed on the record, the following facts are borne-out which are either not disputed or cannot be disputed: i) The petitioner was given appointment as Line Patrolman vide letter of appointment dated Sept.14,1989: ii) The appointment was made on probation for a period of six months and the Corporation had a right to extend the said period of probation; iii) The appointment letter did not contain any condition of automatic confirmation, But, it provided that the service of the petitioner shall not be regarded as confirmed unless a latter of confirmation to the effect is issued to him: iv) The services of the petitioner were dispensed with/ terminated vide letter dated June 20,1990 on the ground of his being unfit for employment for giving false information and suppression of factual information to the Corporation; v) The petitioner was earlier in employment of C.I.S.F. Authority from December 2, 1981 to June 20, 1987 and he was dismissed from service for the reasons mentioned in the letter dated April 26, 1990, as well as, in the Discharge Certificate; the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his dismissal was also dismissed; vi) The petitioner not only suppressed his dismissal order,as well as, the grounds of dismissal, but also made a false statement in the Attestation Form that he left the previous service' due to family circumstances' and that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. 5. Now, I may examine the only legal argument convessed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the services of the petitioner stood confirmed on the expiry of six months' probation period and as such, his termination without any notice and holding an enquiry is illegal.The question of automatic confirmation has been considered by the Hori'ble Supreme Court in various decisions In state of Maharashtra v. V.R. Saboji (supra), the petitioner in that case was appointed on probation for a period of two years. After the expiry of the probation period, he has allowed to continue in the post without confirmation. Thereafter, his services were terminated by a simple order of termination. After the expiry of the probation period, he has allowed to continue in the post without confirmation. Thereafter, his services were terminated by a simple order of termination. The service conditions of the petitioners were regulated by the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956, which provided that the appointment at the first instance has to be on probation for a period of two years and on the expiry of such period be may be confirmed if there is a vacancy and his work is found satisfactory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question of probation held as under : "The plain meaning of the rule is that there is no automatic confirmation on the expiry of the probationary period of two years in the first instance. On the expiry of the said period and on the fulfilment of the requirement of sub-clauses (a) and(b) a Government servant becomes eligible for being confirmed and normally he is likely to be confirmed. But it is a matter of common knowledge in many branches of Government service including the Judiciary that for administrative reasons or otherwise the confirmation is delayed and is made at a subsequent time. It may also be delayed for watching the work of the Government servant for a further period . The expression' unless otherwise expressly directed' governs only the first part of clause (iv) and not the second as was attempted to be argued by Mr. Nariman. In my opinion the rule in question, therefore, comes under the ordinary and normal rule that without an express order of confirmation the Government servant will not be taken to have been confirmed in the post to which he was appointed temporarily and/or on probation." In the same judgment, a reference has been made to the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 873 , re-affirming the view taken in that judgment as under: "The law on the point is now well settled. Where a person is appointed as a probationer in any post and a period of probation is specified, it does not follow that at the end of the said specified period of probation he obtains confirmation automatically even if no order is passed in that behalf. Where a person is appointed as a probationer in any post and a period of probation is specified, it does not follow that at the end of the said specified period of probation he obtains confirmation automatically even if no order is passed in that behalf. Unless the terms of appointment clearly indicate that confirmation would automatically follow at the end of the specified period, or there is a specific service rule to that effect, the expiration of the probationary period does not necessarily lead to confirmation. At the end of the period of probation an order confirming the officer is required to be passed and if no such order is passed and he is not reverted to his substantive post, the result merely is that he continues in his post as a probationer." In the same judgment, a reference has also been made to the following observations made by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1210 . "This Court has consistently held that when a first appointment or promotion is made on probation for a specific period and the employee is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the period without any specific order of confirmation, he should be deemed to continue in his post as a probationer only, in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the original order of appointment or promotion or the service rules. In such a case, an express order of confirmation is necessary to give the employee a substantive right to the post, and from the mere fact that he is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the specified period of probation it is not possible to hold that he should be deemed to have been confirmed." The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Om Prakash v. U.P.Co-op. S.F.F. Lucknow (Supra) has no application in the instant case. In' that case, the regulations 17 and 18 of U.P.Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 provided that appointment against a regular vacancy is to be made on probation for a period of one year and this probation period can be extended for a period of one year more. The proviso to regulation-17 restricted the power of Appointing Authority in extending the period of probation beyond the period of one year. The proviso to regulation-17 restricted the power of Appointing Authority in extending the period of probation beyond the period of one year. Hence, it was held that an employee appointed against a regular vacancy cannot be placed on probation for a period more than two years as there was no power to extend the period of probation beyond the period of two years. In these circumstances, it was held that after the expiry of two years probationary period, the employee stands confirmed by implication. 6. In the instant case, conditions no.2 and 3 of the appointment letter make it clear that the Appointing Authority had a power to extend the period of probation after the expiry of initial probationary period of six months. It is further provided that there shall be no automatic confirmation unless a letter of confirmation to the effect is issued by the Corporation. Therefore, the theory of automatic confirmation as pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner has absolutely no application in the instant case as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. V.R. Saboji (Supra). Even after the expiry of the period of probation, the petitioner still continues to be a probationer.It is noteworthy to state here that the petitioner was initially appointed on probation for a period of six months which expired on or about 15th March, 1990. The order of termination/dispensing with the service of the petitioner has been passed on June 20, 1990 i.e. about three months after the expiry of initial probation period. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has not been confirmed by the Corporation as required by condition no.3 given in the appointment letter. It is also clear that during the probation period, the respondent-Corporation was calling upon the petitioner to furnish a Discharge Certificate of the previous employer and when inspite of several reminders, he did not respond, direct en- queries were made by it from the previous employer i.e. C.I.S.F. Authority. Those enquiries continued even after the expiry of the initial period of probation. Those enquiries continued even after the expiry of the initial period of probation. From these enquiries, it revealed to the Corporation that the petitioner was guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, the details of which have been given in the earlier part of this order.In these circumstances, though the initial period of probation was not ex- tended by the Corporation in writing but it also did not confirm his service as required by condition no. 3 of the appointment letter, the petitioner should be deemed to continue in his post as a probationer only.In the instant case, an express order of confirmation was necessary to give the petitioner a substantial right to the post and from the mere fact that he was allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the specified period of probation in the appointment letter, it cannot be held that he should be deemed to have been confirmed.Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit to be accepted. Therefore, the petitioner being a temporary employee on probation, it was open to the employer-Corporation to terminate his service at any time before he was confirmed if it was satisfied that he was not suitable for being retained in service. 7. The case may be judged from another angle also.It cannot be disputed and it has not Been disputed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. In the attestation form he suppressed the fact that his earlier employer dismissed his service on 'the ground of his misconduct and not only this, he misrepresented when stated in the attestation form that he left the previous service due to family circumstances. The conduct of the petitioner in suppressing and misrepresenting his past on the material cannot be said to be a good conduct. He deliberately suppressed the material facts and tried to obtain employment by deceiving the Corporation.Whether such employee can claim a discretionary relief in his favour under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if his services are terminated by the employer, after getting the information on enquiries about his conduct in the previous service which disclosed that he was dismissed from the service on the grounds of insubordination as well as, entering the religious place after consuming liquor and creating breach of peace there. This assumes importance as the petitioner had not only suppressed these material facts about his conduct, but also misrepresented in the attestation form in which he stated that he left the previous service due to family circumstances, inspite of the warning contained at the beginning of the attestation form that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a dis-qualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Corporation.A Division Bench of this Court in Kanhaiya Lal v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, D.B. Special Appeal No, 50/89 D/d. 27.03.1991 , has considered the effect of such suppression and misrepresentation in such a situation. In that case, the petitioner was also an employee of the respondent Corporation who suppressed his conviction under section 186 Indian Penal Code and imposition of fine of Rs. 100/-. It was observed as under: "The submission of Mr. Shreemali is not of much consequence. The offence may be grave or trivial. What is important is that whatever may have been the nature of the offence, gravity lies in the intentional suppression of this fact to obtain confirmation by false misrepresentation. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to have disclosed all material facts. He was bound to have made a clean breast of the entire event whether trivial or grave. He could not have concealed it, The gravity lies in concealment which disentitle a man of this character from employment because how any reliance can be put on such a person by any employer. After disclosure of the whole matter, it was for the employer to have considered its gravity in order to judge whether in these facts the petitioner should be retained in service or not. It was not for him to have suppressed those facts from his employer treating them as trivial." It was then observed as under: 'The petitioner was on probation and it was not necessary for the appointing authority to hold an enquiry but they have issued him a notice after verifying the fact of his previous conviction and it was because of this fact that his term of probation was not extended as the respondent found that appellant is not fit to be retrained in service on the ground of unsuitability. Hence, in terms of prescribed procedure, order Annex.6 was issued, which will not vitiate the order dated 11.5.83 as termination of his service involved no stigma." 8. In Rasiklal v. Patel v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. , (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India merely on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of suppression of material fact which would weigh with any employer in giving him employment, even though, it did not agree with the view of the High Court. On this ground also, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed with costs which is quantified Rs. 1000/-.Petition dismissed. *******