ORDER J.G. Chitre, J. 1. In the interest of justice and as short point has been involved for adjudication of this petition, it is being decided finally at this motion hearing stage. 2. Shri C.N. Nair, by pointing out Annex. P-16 submitted that an illegal order has been passed by the respondents on 31-8-98 and the petitioner has been removed from service without any fault on his part. He submitted further that petitioner was reinstated in the service on 6-5-98. However, thereafter, without giving him an opportunity of hearing, submitting his say, he has been removed from the service. Challenging that act on the part of the respondents, the petitioner is hereby making a prayer for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him in the service on the same post on which he was serving in the Institution before 31-8-98. 3. Shri Consul, submitted that in the matter of W.P. 1428/96, the Division Bench of this Court had passed an order directing the respondents and other to make a detailed enquiry in respect of irregularities, illegalities committed by Dr. Ramphal, the then Director of respondent Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar National Institute of Social Science (which would be referred to in further portion of order as Institution for convenience). Shri Consul further submitted that the petitioner was appointed by Dr. Ramphal and the appointment order by itself was indicating that he was on probation for a period of two years. He submitted that a departmental enquiry was instituted and conducted against the petitioner wherein he was charge sheeted with four articles of charges which were showing his performance below mark, lethargy in service, derilection in duty and unsatisfactory service rendered by him. Shri Consul submitted that after completion of the said enquiry on 6th May, 98, the petitioner was dealt with stoppage of increment for one year. Shri Consul further submitted that by consideration of representation made by the petitioner earlier to 2-6-98, the petitioner was reinstated in service on the same post after concluding the suspension and, therefore, there was no injustice shown to him. 4. Shri Consul further submitted by referring to the documents that after petitioner was treated with stoppage of the increment, the petitioner did not submit an appeal challenging the said order of stopping his increment. 4. Shri Consul further submitted by referring to the documents that after petitioner was treated with stoppage of the increment, the petitioner did not submit an appeal challenging the said order of stopping his increment. Therefore, it will have to be concluded that he accepted the said verdict and the result of the said enquiry which was conducted against him. He submitted further that he accepted that the charges which were levelled against him were two and did not challenge it or denied it. 5. Thus, Shri Consul submitted that after taking all necessary precautions in accordance with law and regulations, an action has been taken by the respondents by passing the order which, Annex. P-16 dated 31-8-98. Shri Consul submitted further that petitioner has not been punished but he has been informed that his services were not further required by the respondents and the Institution. Shri Consul submitted that this is a proper, justifiable and justified action taken by the respondents and that the punishment was not the basis of the order passed dated 31-8-98 and, therefore, this Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition and the prayer made by the petitioner in the prayer clause of the petition. 6. It true that a probationer has a right of being heard before an action is taken against him which would be prejudicial to his interest. That may be in the nature of pointing out the defaults committed by him and allowing him to mend his behaviour, to avoid such mistakes in future in his service. Even before blaming him, he needs to be heard and needs to be given an opportunity of removing the blame put on him, leaving aside the charges, allegations. 7. In the present case he has been given ample opportunity when an enquiry was conducted against him. After the enquiry was concluded, his one increment was stopped for one year. When that order was passed, it was open for the petitioner to challenge the order by following a legal remedy, but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he did not do so. It may be that he was satisfied with the order of reinstatement. When petitioner was reinstated, he had the opportunity to assail the same order by which his increment was stopped for one year but he did not do so. It may be that he was satisfied with the order of reinstatement. When petitioner was reinstated, he had the opportunity to assail the same order by which his increment was stopped for one year but he did not do so. Now either he has to blame himself or thank himself for such attitude and behaviour. 8. Petitioner has been informed that his services are no more required by the Institution and the respondents. Petitioner had the opportunity of assailing the order by which the annual increment for one year was stopped. The respondents are entitled to consider whether petitioner has completed the period of probation. They were entitled to react after assessing the performance during the period of probation. The defaults around which Shri Nair placed his submissions, have been brought to his notice. He has been given sufficient opportunity in that context. 9. Thus, summing up all, this Court finds no necessity of allowing the prayer made by the petitioner in the prayer clause of the petition for issuing a writ of mandamus and directing respondents to reinstate him in the same post and in the same service. The law does not help the indolents. One who is satisfied with lethargy and follows the behaviour of indolence, would not be entitled to get a relief from the Court in view of the Art. 226 of Indian Constitution. Thus, petition stands dismissed. It is made clear that the respondents shall decide his appeal, representation, if pending for considering in accordance with law, regulations and rules. The sealed two envelopes produced by the respondents, be returned to them in the same intacted condition as it was not necessary for the Court to peruse it in view of the submission advanced and in view of the material which is available on record. 10. Writ Petition dismissed.