ORDER:---The petitioner was appointed by order dated 25-5-2000 as Apprentice Development Officer in the pay-scale of Rs. 2660-EB-7520, the probationary period was of one year i.e. from 28-3-2000 to 27-3-2001. 2. By the impugned order dated 8-1-2002 the Divisional Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India has terminated the service of petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted at the first instance that the termination order is punitive in nature and also stigmatic and therefore, it ought to have been preceded by a proper departmental inquiry in keeping with the principles of natural justice. In addition, it is submitted that the petitioner has met the targets of his performance as are set-out in the appointment order and there was no case for the Corporation, to dub him as non-performer or unsatisfactory performer. 4. The respondent No. 2 has submitted an affidavit before us. It has been pointed out that though the appointment order is dated 25-5-2000, as per the oral instructions the petitioner joined at Hadgaon on 28-3-2000 and he has been paid salary from that date till June, 2000 which he received on 14th July, 2000. It was under these circumstances that the probationary period of the petitioner was treated to have been commenced from 28-3-2000 in the appointment letter. We are inclined to accept this statement because the petitioner never raised any grievance in regard to the probationary period before the respondents in writing pursuant to the appointment order dated 25-5-2000. 5. So far as the performance of the petitioner is concerned, the appointment order has specifically set-out the targets and in the affidavit in reply the targets achieved by the petitioner have been set-out. In the first year, the petitioner was to achieve scheduled first year premium income of Rs. 36 lakhs, whereas, he has actually achieved the income of Rs. 57,735/-. The petitioner was to achieve the target of insuring 200 lives, where he has insured 79 policies. The activation target was fixed at 23, whereas, the petitioner has appointed 14 upto 31-12-2000. The effective agents target was fixed at 5, whereas, the petitioner achieved the target of only 2. The agents appointed by the petitioner are Shri A.G. Elalwar (AG Code No. 7741984) and Shri S.P. Rodge (Ag. Code No. 7742984). Rest of 12 agents were appointed before 28-3-2000 as stated in the affidavit in reply. The effective agents target was fixed at 5, whereas, the petitioner achieved the target of only 2. The agents appointed by the petitioner are Shri A.G. Elalwar (AG Code No. 7741984) and Shri S.P. Rodge (Ag. Code No. 7742984). Rest of 12 agents were appointed before 28-3-2000 as stated in the affidavit in reply. The details have been set-out in the affidavit in reply regarding unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner. 6. If the tenure of probationer's appointment has been discontinued on account of unsatisfactory performance, such an order does not amount to either a stigmatic order or an order punitive in nature. Our view is supported by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi, P.G.I. of Medical Sciences)1, J.T. 2001(9) S.C. 420. 7. In the instant case, the termination of service of the petitioner is strictly in keeping with the terms of appointment order and therefore, no interference is called for in the said order. 8. The writ petition is rejected summarily. Writ petition rejected. -----