M. V. TAMASKAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Accountant by the respondent/m. P. Antyavasavee Co-operative Development Corporation limited on probation and posted at Durg, vide Annexure-A. His services could be terminated by giving one month notice or the pay thereof By annexure-C dated 15-6-1984, the petitioner was fixed in the scale of Rs 335-5-240-6-270-KB-10-350-950. ( 2 ) UNDER this appointment the probation was for a period of two years. The petitioner continued in service till March, 1988. Though appointed on probation for a period of two years, the persons completing one year were entitled for increment, Vide Annexure-E, it was stated that the work of the petitioner was satisfactory between the period of probation and after the period of probation i e. total 4 years. There were no adverse reports against him. However, it is alleged that during the year 1985 some mistakes committed in accounting for which a police case was contemplated. ( 3 ) THE respondent filed return and vide Annexure-Rule/1, some irregularities were pointed out in his work along with some other officials. Vide Annexurer 2, as such, services were terminated as no longer required on payment of one month's salary. ( 4 ) THE petitioner challenges this order of termination on various grounds. The first submission of the petitioner in this regard as that the petitioner was appointed on probation and having completed period of probation satisfactorily he automatically become permanent and as such his serv ices could not have been terminated without holding any proper enquiry. Other submission made was that even though order of the termination as stated in the return was simple, bis services were terminated as he had failed and neglected to maintain proper account committed irregularities as per Annexure-R/1, audit Report. ( 5 ) THE respondent has filed audit report and the order of termination only, no other document has been filed. ( 6 ) THE sole question for consideration is whether the appointing authority had applied mind to the audit report to hold that the petitioner's services were liable to be terminated. ( 7 ) IT is true that the petitioner was continued even after the period of probation The question therefore is whether the petitioner had become automatically permanent in the service. No rules have been filed. It is not the law that a person becomes automatically permanent after completion of probation. ( 7 ) IT is true that the petitioner was continued even after the period of probation The question therefore is whether the petitioner had become automatically permanent in the service. No rules have been filed. It is not the law that a person becomes automatically permanent after completion of probation. There should be an order confirming him. In the instant case there does not appear any material placed to show that the petitioner had become permanent. However, fact of the matter is that the petitioner's services were not terminated solely on the basis of the contract of appointment and there was something also behind it. The question is whether we should lift the veil and find out whether the order passed was penal in nature, Mere form of the order is not enough. If we look to the return, there is something behind the order of termination i. e. the audit report wherein he has been found to have committed some irregularities. The respondent has not at all cared to have placed any material on record to show that disciplinary authority and appointing authority applied their mindto the audit report and therefor passed an order. An employee who has been appointed on probation and whose services are not found to be satisfactorily can be removed by saying not fit but having continued in service that does not appear to be so, nor the respondent has taken decision to terminate the services of the petitioner being not satisfactory. Surprisipgly, despit our searching enquiry regarding the proceedings and the note-sheets on the basis of which the petitioner was removed was not produced before us. As such, it appears that even though order of the termination is shown as simple termination; it is in fact punitive. Even temporary employee is entitled to an opportunity if he is being removed for some alleged misconduct A departmental enquiry is a must. The order of termination Annexurer/2 is therefore, liable to be quashed. ( 8 ) THE respondent submitted that the petitioner should have approached authorities under Section 55 of M P. Co-operative Societies Act. In view of the fact that there is apparent illegality it would not be fair to send the petitioner back as no facts are involved which are required to be proved. ( 8 ) THE respondent submitted that the petitioner should have approached authorities under Section 55 of M P. Co-operative Societies Act. In view of the fact that there is apparent illegality it would not be fair to send the petitioner back as no facts are involved which are required to be proved. In view of admission of the respondent in the return and during the course of arguments, it is difficult to hold that the termination was not arbitrarily. The order of the termination being absolutely arbitrary and without following any procedure is quashed The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. Consequently, he is ordered to be reinstated with all benefits. The petitioner shall also get costs of Rs. 200/ -. ( 9 ) THE petition is accordingly allowed. Security amount be refunded,if any Petition allowed .