H.K. Sema, J.:- The Petitioner on successful completion of interview comprising written, oral and physical test and after necessary training was ap­pointed as Supervisor, Non technical Grade II at the establishment of the respon­dents on 25.6.85. The terms and conditions of the appointment besides other stipulates that the appointment was made on probation for the first two years of appointment and on completion of probation the competent authority will assess the suitability of the petitioner for continued appointment and pass appropriate orders either confirming the successful completion of probation or extending the probationary period for not more than one year at a time, provided that the aggregate period does not, save for exceptional reasons, exceed 4 years. It will be pertinent to mention herein that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner could produce only the provisional certificate of B. A. as by the time the Calcutta University could not provide the original certificate. On completion of probationary period of 2 years as on 24.6.87 the petitioner's service was not confirmed but the probation period was extended by another 1 year up to 27.6.88 by the respondents by an order dated 31.8.87 (Annexure-3) on perusal of Annexure 3 order the only ground for extending the probationary period of petitioner's service of 1 year was due to non furnishing of the original Degree qualification Certificate by the petitioner within 2 years of probationary period. No other ground has been assigned in the annexure 3 order. By another order dated 19.9.88 (An­nexure 9) the probationary period of the petitioner's service was further extended for a period of 1 year up to 24.6.89. The ground taken in Annexure 9 order said to be involvement of the petitioner in a disciplinary proceeding. It is however, averred in paragraph 17 of the writ petition that no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. On the other hand, the proposed disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner for irregularities committed by the petitioner mentioned in Annexure 9 order was dropped. By an order dated 12.6.89(Annexure-12) the service of the petitioner was discharged w.e.f. 25.6.89 on the ground that the petitioner is found unfit for continuance in service. The petitioner thereafter, made representation against the impugned order before the competent authority by its petition dated 18.6.89 which was disposed of by the authority by its order dated 23.6.89 (Annexure-15). By an order dated 12.6.89(Annexure-12) the service of the petitioner was discharged w.e.f. 25.6.89 on the ground that the petitioner is found unfit for continuance in service. The petitioner thereafter, made representation against the impugned order before the competent authority by its petition dated 18.6.89 which was disposed of by the authority by its order dated 23.6.89 (Annexure-15). In paragraph 4 of the said order it reiterate the Annexure 12 order stating that the petitioner is unfit for continuance in service and rejected the representation. There is yet another order dated 23.6.89 (Annexure-14) served upon the petitioner stating that an oral inquiry to investigate the charge has been conducted by the authority on 21.6.89 and that the charge levelled against the petitioner has been proved and a penalty of CENSURE was imposed upon the petitioner. Hence this petition. 2. We have heard Mr. R. S. Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well Mr. S. N. Chetia, learned C. G. S. C. for the respondents. 3. The submission of Mr. Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders are passed with malafide. The further submission of Mr. Bedi was that although the impugned order speaks that the petitioner is unfit for continuance in service, the petitioner's service was actually discharged by way of punishment without holding proper inquiry Therefore, the only question which arises for our consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the respondents are justified to pass the impugned orders. The order impugned runs as follows:- "Annexure-12. Hqs751 BRTF, C/OAPO 1133/13/EIB dated 12.6.89 Place of issue-Field. ORDER 1. C/O 102138-M-Supvr-NT 11 Dilip Kr. Saha of RSC 751 BRTF (GREF) was recruited in GREF on 25th June, 1985, based on his performance in the first three years of appointment he was granted extension of probation period up to 24th June, 1989 (AN). On completion of his four years service his suitability for continued appointment has been carefully assessed by the undersigned and he is found unfit for continuance in service. 2. In view of the above, G/1 62138-N Supvr NT Gde 11 Dilip Kr. Saha of RSC 751 BRTF (GREF) is hereby discharged from service w. e. f. 25th June, 1989. 3. Receipt of this order will be acknowledged by G/162138 N. Supvr, NT Gde. II Dilip Kr. Saha. Sd/- R. Chatrath. S. E. (C) S. G. Commander Appointing authority. 2. In view of the above, G/1 62138-N Supvr NT Gde 11 Dilip Kr. Saha of RSC 751 BRTF (GREF) is hereby discharged from service w. e. f. 25th June, 1989. 3. Receipt of this order will be acknowledged by G/162138 N. Supvr, NT Gde. II Dilip Kr. Saha. Sd/- R. Chatrath. S. E. (C) S. G. Commander Appointing authority. To G/162138-N-Supvr NT Gde II (through OC Admn Supvr) Dilip Kr. Saha TSC 751 BRTF (GREF) C/O 99 APO." 4. On bare perusal of the order the only ground for discharging the service of the petitioner was that the petitioner was found unfit for continuance in service. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In paragraph 2 of the counter it has been stated that taking into consideration of the overall performance of the petitioner during the period of probation as well as extended probationary period, his suitability for continued appointment in GREF was carefully assessed by his appointing authority and as he was found unfit for continuance in service and was discharged from service w.e.f. 25.6.89 as per existing rules. In short, it supports the Annexure 12 order. In course of hearing of this writ petition learned C. G. S. C. made relevant records including the Annual Confidential Report, 'In short ACR' of the petitioner for the period from 30.5.86 to 8.11.86, for the period from 1.1.87 to 31.12.87 and for the period from 1.1.88 to 27.9.88 available to us. We have carefully gone through the ACR of the petitioner and found as follows :- For the period from 30.5.86 to 8.11.86 against a general remarks column it is noted :- "Hard working sincere Supervisor. Has performed his duties very well. Overall assessment-Very good. Recommended for permanency in GREF" For the period from 1.1.87 to 31.12.87 against a general remarks column it is noted :- "An average Supervisor NT II who is found to take sufficient interest in his work. Overall grading : Average." For the period from 1.1.88 to 27.9.88 against a general column it is noted : "His performance during the year is average. Overall grading : Average." Thus the ACR of the petitioner speaks volume against the findings of the authority that the petitioner is found unfit for continuance in service. In other words, the reasons assigned by the authority in Annexure 12 order is belied by ACR in respect of the petitioner. Overall grading : Average." Thus the ACR of the petitioner speaks volume against the findings of the authority that the petitioner is found unfit for continuance in service. In other words, the reasons assigned by the authority in Annexure 12 order is belied by ACR in respect of the petitioner. On the other hand, the remarks in the ACR of the petitioner that he is hard working, sincere Supervisor, he performed his duties very well and recommended for permanancy in GREF - Overall assessment very good and that remarks that the petitioner is found to take sufficient interest in his work, in our opinion, are the best qualities of an officer and to discharge such an officer on the ground of found unfit is totally unwarranted. In this view of the matter, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the discharge of the petitioner's service was tainted with malafide and by way of punishment is well substantiated and must prevail. It is on this score alone this petition is entitled to be succeeded the result the impugned orders dated 12.6,89 (Annexure-12), impugned order dated 23.6.89 (Annexure-14) imposing the penalty of CENSURE of the petitioner and the impugned order dated 23.6.89 (Annexure-15 rejecting the petitioner's representation are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service for all purposes including pay and allowances and other service benefits. The respondents are also directed to confirm the service of the petitioner in the grade of Supervisor non Technical Grade II. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.