P. K. Bahri, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article2. 26 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of Certiorariquashing the order of discharge of the petitioner dated 5/10/1987. ( 2 ) FACTS, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed on the postof Superintendent (B/r II) w. e. f. 18/01/1983 and he was put on a probation of two years. The Departmental Rules governing the petitioner,which are reproduced on running page 12 of the writ petition, show thatinitial appointment of the officers and other persons has to be on a probationfor the first two years and after completion of that probation period, thecompetent authority has to assess the suitability of the person concerned andpass suitable orders either confirming the successful completion of probationor extending the probationary period for not more than one year at a time. It is also provided that the aggregate period of probation would not, savefor exceptional reasons, exceed four years and on the expiry of or any timeduring the period of probation, the appointing authority does not considerany member suitable for continuance, he shall be discharged and no noticewill be given therefor. 2. The short question which arises for consideration in this case isthat after the maximum period of four years of probation provided underthe Rules has expired, whether the respondents were legally right in passinga simpliciter order of discharge of the petitioner without holding disciplinaryproceedings. The order of discharge was made after the expiry of four yearsand about 9 months from the date of initial appointment. The Rules clearlycontemplate that the period of probation cannot be allowed to exceed fouryears at all. if that is the State of Rules, the question which arises forconsideration is as to what could be the status of the petitioner as anemployee on the expiry of maximum period of probation of four years? ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has REFERRED TO to a Constitutionbench decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab v. Dharamsingh, A. I. R, 1968, Supreme Court 1210. In the said case, Rule 6 of thepunjab Education Service (Provincialised Cadre) Rules 1961 came up forconsideration. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has REFERRED TO to a Constitutionbench decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab v. Dharamsingh, A. I. R, 1968, Supreme Court 1210. In the said case, Rule 6 of thepunjab Education Service (Provincialised Cadre) Rules 1961 came up forconsideration. The said Rule provided that the post in the first instancewould be on probation lor one year and on completion of one year periodof probation, the authority could either extend the period of probation,provided the total period of probation, including the extension, would notexceed three years, In the said case, after the maximum period of probationof three years bad expired, the employee was allowed to continue withoutany specific order being made confirming the employee in the post. Theresort was not taken to the provisions of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1952 for taking any disciplinary action against thepetitioner in that case, but his services were discontinued treating him to benot suitable for service as his service was not found upto the mark duringthe probation period. ( 4 ) THE Supreme Court held that in case the service rules fix a certainperiod of time beyond which the probationary period cannot be extendedand an employee appointed or promoted to a post on probation is allowed tocontinue in that post after completion of the maximum period of probationwithout an express order of confirmation, then he cannot be deemed tocontinue in that post as a probationer on implication. The reason is that suchan implication is negatived by the service rules forbidding extension of theprobationary period beyond maximum period fixed by it. In such a case, it ispermissible to draw the inference that the employee allowed to continue inthe post on completion of the maximum period of probation has been confirmed in the post by implication. ( 5 ) THIS ratio laid down in this judgment clearly applies to the facts ofthe present case. In such a case, it ispermissible to draw the inference that the employee allowed to continue inthe post on completion of the maximum period of probation has been confirmed in the post by implication. ( 5 ) THIS ratio laid down in this judgment clearly applies to the facts ofthe present case. The Supreme Court had noticed other judgments of thesupreme Court which bad taken the view consistently that when a firstappointment or promotion is made for a specific period and the employeeis allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the period without anyspecific order of confirmation, he should be deemed to continue in his postas a probationer only, in the absence of any indication to the contrary in theoriginal order of appointment or promotion or the service rules. In such acase, an express order of confirmation is necessary to give the employee asubstantive right to the post and from the mere fact that he is allowed tocontinue in the post after the expiry of the specified period of probation, itis not possible to hold that he should be deemed to have been confirmed. ( 6 ) BUT the Supreme Court clearly held that this ratio would not applywhere the rules specified that the maximum period of probation would notexceed some period and in case the rules do prescribe maximum period ofprobation, the employee, who has put in the said maximum period of probation, would be impliedly deemed to be confirmed on the expiry of themaximum period of confirmation. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent has cited Hari Singh Mannv. State of Punjab, 1970 S. L. R. 915 where a Division Bench of the Punjaband Haryana High Court had held that after the expiry of the probationperiod, the authorities have to make up their mind within a reasonable timeto decide as to whether an employee, whose period of probation has expired,is to be continued in service or not, keeping in view his performance duringthe probation period. In the said case. the petitioner was appointed asdeputy Superintendent of Police on 20/05/1965 and the maximum periodof probation in Rule 8 (B) of the Punjab Rules 1959 was three years. Hisperiod of probation was completed on 20/05/1968, but the services of thepetitioner were terminated on Jan. 30, 1969. In the said case. the petitioner was appointed asdeputy Superintendent of Police on 20/05/1965 and the maximum periodof probation in Rule 8 (B) of the Punjab Rules 1959 was three years. Hisperiod of probation was completed on 20/05/1968, but the services of thepetitioner were terminated on Jan. 30, 1969. The Punjab and Haryana Highcourt had made a reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court givenin Dharamvir s case (supra) and had held that there cannot be automaticconfirmation of an employee who has completed maximum period of probation and unless and until some reasonable time expires after the expiry ofthe maximum period of probation, the employee would continue to be onprobation and his services could be terminated on the basis of his performance being not upto the mark during the probation period. ( 8 ) I am afraid the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana Highcourt has not given full effect to the ratio laid down in Dharamvir s case (supra ). It has been clearly laid down in the said case that where the rulesfix a maximum period of probation, the employee would be deemed to beconfirmed impliedly on expiry of the period of probation. So, there could beno question of any action being taken against such an employee treatingthat employee as on probation after the expiry of the maximum period ofprobation. Just on the expiry of the period of probation, the authorities arcbound to take action against that employee immediately for terminating hisservices if his performance in the. probation period was not satisfactory. Noperiod can be allowed to be expired beyond four years in the present case forallowing the employer to assess the work of the probationer and then takethe steps to terminate his service without resorting to disciplinary proceedings when status of the employee as a probationer comes to an end onexpiry of maximum period of four years provided in the Rules. ( 9 ) RELIANCE was also placed by learned Counsel for the respondenton Kedar Nath v. State of Punjab, 1972 S. L. R. 320. This judgment is of nohelp to the respondent because in this case no maximum period of probationhad been fixed in the Rules. ( 9 ) RELIANCE was also placed by learned Counsel for the respondenton Kedar Nath v. State of Punjab, 1972 S. L. R. 320. This judgment is of nohelp to the respondent because in this case no maximum period of probationhad been fixed in the Rules. It is settled law that where a person is appointedas a probationer in any post and his period of probation is mentioned, itdoes not follow that at the end of the said probation period, he obtainsconfirmation automatically even if no order is passed in that behalf. Thisparticular ratio has already been noticed by the Constitution Bench in theaforesaid judgment of Dharamvir s case (supra ). The legal inference becomesdifferent when rules provide for maximum period of probation which cannotbe exceeded. ( 10 ) LASTLY, the learned Counsel for the respondent cited K. A. Barotv. State of Gujarat, 1990 (supra) Supreme Court Cases 287. This judgment isalso distinguishable because in this case also no maximum period of probation had been fixed by the Rules beyond which the probation cannotcontinue. ( 11 ) SO, in view of the above discussion, following the Supreme Courtjudgment in Dharamvir s case (supra), I hold that on the expiry of the periodof four years from the initial appointment, the petitioner would be deemedto have been confirmed in the post and he could not have been dischargedsimpliciter by passing the order on 5/10/1987. I allow the writ petitionand make the Rule absolute and quash the impugned order. The petitionerwould be deemed to have continued in service and would be entitled to allconsequential reliefs regarding pay. etc. ( 12 ) THE petitioner shall have costs quantified at Rs. 500. 00. I The petition stands disposed of.