G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS special appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 29. 1. 1998 of learned Single Judge by which Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2167 of 1974 filed by the appellant challenging the order of termination of service was dismissed. The order dated 7. 1. 2000 by which the review petition filed by the appellant was rejected has also been impugned in the present appeal. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel has contended that the services of the appellant were terminated by way of punishment and as no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to him, the same was illegal having been passed in violation of provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. In support of his submission be has placed reliance on Dipti Prakash Banerji v. Satendra Nath national Institute, 1999 (2) Supreme 34 and Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U. P. State Agra corporation, 1999 (1) ESC 314 (SC): 1998 (9) Supreme 504 . ( 3 ) THE appellant Jagdish Prasad Tiwari was initially appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of three months, by the order dated 26. 11. 1991. This appointment came to an end on 26. 2. 92. Thereafter he was appointed as typist-cum-clerk on probation for a period of one year w. e. f. 1. 4. 1992. His services were terminated by the District Magistrate, Firozabad by the order dated 20. 3. 93 within the period of probation. He preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Agra which was dismissed by the order dated 3. 12. 1993. The aforesaid orders were challenged in the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit it has been averred that the services of the appellant were terminated during the period of probation as his work and conduct was not found to be proper. On over all assessment of work of the appellant the District Magistrate took a decision to terminate his services. The allegation of the appellant that the Tehsildar, Jasrana bore a grudge against him or that his report regarding work and conduct of the appellant was biased due to mala fide reasons was wrong. On over all assessment of work of the appellant the District Magistrate took a decision to terminate his services. The allegation of the appellant that the Tehsildar, Jasrana bore a grudge against him or that his report regarding work and conduct of the appellant was biased due to mala fide reasons was wrong. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel has submitted that the termination of the service of the appellant is founded upon the report of the Tehsildar in which certain allegations regarding the work and conduct of the appellant had been made and it was also stated that the appellant had committed theft of certain amount which had been realised by a Collection Amin and this shows that the impugned order had been passed by way of punishment It is note worthy that in the termination order the only fact stated is that the services of the appellant who had been appointed on probation for a period of one year, were no longer required and therefore, they were being terminated with immediate effect. In the appeal filed before the Commissioner the contention of the appellant was that before terminating his services one month is notice or pay in lieu thereof were not given. The District Magistrate, Firozabad in his parawise reply to the appeal filed by the appellant stated that as his services were not found to be satisfactory, they were terminated during the period of probation and further that it was not necessary to pay one month is salary in lieu of notice simultaneously along with the termination order. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal with the direction that-one month is salary be immediately paid to the appellant. No stigma of any kind has been cast upon the appellant in the termination order passed by the district Magistrate on 20. 3. 83. It is a wholly innocuous order and does not level any charge upon the appellant. The cases cited by the learned Counsel have no application as in both the cases it was found as a fact that the mis-conduct alleged against the employee was the very foundation of the order terminating his services. No charge-sheet was served upon the appellant nor any disciplinary inquiry was initiated against him. The appellant was working under Tehsildar, jasrana who was asked to give a report regarding his work and conduct. No charge-sheet was served upon the appellant nor any disciplinary inquiry was initiated against him. The appellant was working under Tehsildar, jasrana who was asked to give a report regarding his work and conduct. Taking into consideration the report or the Tehsildar the appointing authority took a decision not to confirm the appellant in service and to terminate his services during the period of probation. In these circumstances it cannot be held that the services of the appellant had been terminated by way of punishment. ( 5 ) IN Bishan Lal v. State of Haryana, A. R 1978 SC 363, the petitioner joined Haryana Civil service as a probationer on 8. 12. 1966. He Was served with two show cause notice on 22. 10. 1968 and 18. 6. 69 asking him to explaint certain allegations to which he gave reply. He was served a third show cause notice by the Chief Secreatry on 19. 6. 69. After considering his explanations, his services were terminated by an innocuously worded order dated 11. 9. 1969. It was urged that his services had been terminated by way of punishment. The Court repelled the attack with the observation that where the intention behind an enquiry against the probationer was not to hold a full departmental trial to punish but a summary enquiry to decide only suitability to continue in service and the probationer was given ample opportunity to answer in writing whatever was alleged against him in show cause notices, the communication of order of termination following such summary enquiry could not be said to be an order of punishment which entitled him to a full-filedged departmental enquiry contemplated by Article 311. In ongc v. Dr. Md. S. Iskander Ali, AIR 1980 SC 1242, a departmental enquiry was held against the employee during the period of his probation as there were reports against him but the enquiry was not proceeded with and his services were terminated. It was urged that there was violation of article 311 of the Constitution. In ongc v. Dr. Md. S. Iskander Ali, AIR 1980 SC 1242, a departmental enquiry was held against the employee during the period of his probation as there were reports against him but the enquiry was not proceeded with and his services were terminated. It was urged that there was violation of article 311 of the Constitution. The Court rejected the contention on behalf of the employee by observing that even if mis-conduct negligence, inefficiency might be the motive or inducing factor which influenced the employer to terminate the services of the employee, a power which the employer undoubtedly possessed, even so as under the terms of appointment of the employee such a power flowed from the contract of service, termination of services could not be termed as penalty or punishment. In Ravindra Kumar v. UP. State Handloom Corporation, AIR 1987 SC 2408 , the appellant was placed under suspension on 22. 11. 1982 by an order which mentioned that he was responsible for misconduct, dereliction of duty, mismanagement and showing fictitious production of cloth. On 1. 2. 1983 the suspension order was revoked and on 10. 2. 1983 a simple order terminating his services was passed. It was held that the order of termination was in" innocuous terms and did not cast any stigma nor visited the employee with any evil consequences. It was further held that the termination order being not founded on a mis-conduct was not open to challenge. Similarly in K. M. Institute v. Pandurang Godwalkar and Anr. , AIR 1993 SC 392 , it was held as under : "but whenever the service of an employee is terminated during the period of probation or while his appointment is on temporary basis, by an order of termination simpliciter after some preliminary enquiry it can not be held that as some enquiry had been made against him before issuance of order of termination it really amounted to his removal from service on a charge, as such penal in nature. " ( 6 ) HAVING given our careful consideration to the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge which may warrant interference in appeal. ( 7 ) THE special appeal is dismissed summarily. .