Judgment R.A.Sharma, J. 1. Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, the sole respondent in this appeal was appointed as a Development Officer by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) on probation for a period of one year from 11.8.1994 to 10.8.1995. His probation was extended for another one year from 11.8.1995 to 10.8.1996. Before the expiry of the extended period of probation his services was terminated vide letter dated 7.8.1996. Being aggrieved thereby he filed C.W.J.C. No. 3986 of 1996 (R) before this Court, which was allowed and the impugned order was quashed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 28.8.1997. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Judge the Corporation has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The respondent was appointed on probation with a condition of achievement of work target fixed by the Corporation. The letter of appointment (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) further states the "the quality of business procured, the strength of the agency organisation, etc. will be assessed before taking decision on your confirmation." The order extending the period of probation also reiterated the same conditions which were in the original letter of appointment. It was further stated therein that "your performance will be reviewed every month and at any point of time during the extended period of your probation, your services may be terminated by the competent authority without assigning any reason." Before the expiry of the extended period of probation a letter dated 24.7.1996 was sent by the Marketing Manager of the Corporation to the respondent reminding him that the extended period of his probation will come to an end on 10.8.1996. The said letter also contains the work target to be achieved by the respondent without exceeding the cost ratio above 24%. Three days before the expiry of the extended period of probation, him services were terminated vide letter dated 7.8.1996 on the ground that his work performance was not satisfactory. 4. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of termination of the services of the respondent on the ground that his services were not liable to be terminated before the expiry of the extended period of probation. 4. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of termination of the services of the respondent on the ground that his services were not liable to be terminated before the expiry of the extended period of probation. The relevant part of the judgment of the learned Judge is reproduced below- At the face of Annexure-3, which was issued on 24.7.1996, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated, vide order as contained in Annexure-4 before the expiry of the extended period of probation as the petitioner was yet to achieve the target fixed by the Corporation. The authorities should have waited for few days to see as to whether the petitioner had achieved the target fixed by it. There is nothing on record to show either way that the petitioner even during the period of probation was not discharging his duties satisfactorily and on that score his services were liable to be terminated. The letter dated 24.7.1996 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) on the basis of which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition is reproduced below- We would like to inform you that your extended period of probation will be over on 10.8.1996. As mentioned in our letter dated 30.11.1995, your performance during the period from 11.8.1995 to 10.8.1996 should be follows- NITIN(658).htm Moreover, the cost ratio during this period must not exceed 24%. Kindly note that under no circumstances, your probationary period will be further extended. We would also like to make it clear that just achievement of Target will not make you automatically eligible for confirmation. The quality of business procured, the strength of the agency organisation etc. will be assessed before taking decision on your confirmation. 5. From the perusal of the writ petition and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation in reply thereto, it is apparent that till the date on which his services were terminated the respondent has not achieved the target. This position is not disputed. The case of the respondent, which was accepted by the learned single Judge, is that the target could have been achieved by 10.8.1996, which was the last date of probation. This position is not disputed. The case of the respondent, which was accepted by the learned single Judge, is that the target could have been achieved by 10.8.1996, which was the last date of probation. It is speculation based on misconception presuming that the work target could have been achieved by the respondent by the last date of probation, that by itself will not entitle him for confirmation because the achievement of the work target is not the only requirement for confirmation. There are other requirements/conditions also which must be achieved/fulfilled. These requirements were also highlighted in the letter dated 24.7.1996 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), the relevant extract of which is requoted below- We would also like to make it clear that just achievement of Target will not make you automatically eligible for confirmation. The quality of business procured, the strength of the agency organisation, etc. will be assessed before taking decision on your confirmation. One of those important conditions is the cost ratio, which was also mentioned in the letter dated 24.7.1996 saying that "the cost ratio during this period must not exceed 25%." In paragraph No. 17 of the counter-affidavit, it has specifically been stated that the cost ratio of the respondent is 39.02%, which is much more that what has been fixed by the Corporation. Even the achievement of the business target with high cost ratio is indication of unsatisfactory performance. High cost incurred in achieving the target reduces the profit of the Corporation. That apart, the Corporation in its counter-affidavit has also stated that, the respondents work performance, his organisational ability and sincerety in efforts were not satisfactory. In this connection paragraph No. 17 of the counter-affidavit is reproduced below- That with reference to the statements made in paragraph 13 of the said writ application, I say that the letter under reference dated 4.9.1996 is addressed by the Branch Manger, Giridih (Respondent No. 4) to Manager (Sales) thereby reviewing the performance of the petitioner and the Branch Manger has mentioned in the said letter that the work record does not claim his confirmation in the service. This is further to the Confidential Report of the petitioner for confirmation dated 9.8.1996 where the Branch Manager has, categorically mentioned that the petitioners work performance does not speak volumes about his organisational ability and sincerity in efforts. Further it states that his cost ratio is 39.02%. This is further to the Confidential Report of the petitioner for confirmation dated 9.8.1996 where the Branch Manager has, categorically mentioned that the petitioners work performance does not speak volumes about his organisational ability and sincerity in efforts. Further it states that his cost ratio is 39.02%. These averments have not been disputed by the respondent by filing rejoinder affidavit. 6 There was thus no justification for allowing the writ petition on the ground that the services of the respondent could not have been terminated before the expiry of the period of probation as he could have achieved the work target within the remaining three days of the probation period. The further observations in the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the effect that "there is nothing on record to show either way that the petitioner even during the period of probation was not discharging his duties satisfactorily" are contrary to record and are not sustainable. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons given above, no exception can be taken to the case/plea of the Corporation that overall performance of the respondent was not satisfactory on account of which his services were terminated during probation. 7. It is well settled that the services of the probationer can be terminated before the expiry of the period of probation on the basis of overall assessment of his performance. In this connection, reference may be made to the following two decisions of the Apex Court- (i) Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore V/s. Dr. Pandurang Godwalkar and Anr. -- , wherein, while dealing with similar question relating to termination of the services of the probationer, it was laid down as under- 7. When an appointment is made on probation, it presupposes that the conduct, performance, ability and the capacity of the employee concerned have to be watched and examined during the period of probation. He is to be confirmed after the expiry of probation only when his service during the period of probation is found to be satisfactory and he is considered suitable for the post against which he has been appointed. He is to be confirmed after the expiry of probation only when his service during the period of probation is found to be satisfactory and he is considered suitable for the post against which he has been appointed. The principle of tearing off the veil for finding out the real nature of the order shall be applicable only in a case where the Court is satisfied that there is a direct nexus between the charge so levelled and the action taken. If the decision is taken, to terminate the services of an employee during the period of probation, after taking into consideration the overall performance and some action or in action on the part of such employee then it cannot be said that it amounts to his removal from service as punishment. " and (ii) M. Venugopal V/s. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam. A.P. and Anr. -- , where the same rule was reiterated holding as follows- 15. Even under general law, the services of a probationer can be terminated after making an overall assessment of his performance during the period of probation and no notice is required to be given before termination of such service. This aspect has been examined by this Court in the case of The Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Banaglore V/s. Dr. Pandurang Godwalkar where it has been pointed out that if the performance of the employee concerned during the period of probation is not found to be satisfactory on overall assessment, then it is open to the competent authority to terminate his service. In the case of M. Venugopal (supra), the termination of the service of a Development Officer of the Corporation before the expiry of the extended period of probation was upheld. 8 This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.8.1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3986 of 1996 (R) is set aside. The writ petition is dismission. No cost. A.K.Prasad, J. 9 I agree.