ORDER 1. THE APPELLANT WAS DISCHARGED FROM SERVICE DURING THE PERIOD OF PROBATION BY MEMORANDUM NO. BGB/PER/OX/27/86 DATED 27-10-1986 WHILE HE WAS WORKING IN THE RESPONDENT BANK. THE APPELLANT FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER BEFORE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. WHILE THE SAID APPEAL WAS NOT DISPOSED OF AND WAS KEPT PENDING, HE APPROACHED THE HIGH COURT BY FILING A WRIT PETITION. IN THE FIRST ROUND, THE WRIT PETITION WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE HIGH COURT DIRECTING THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EXPEDITIOUSLY. AFTER CONSIDERATION, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. THEREAFTER, THE APPELLANT FILED ONE MORE WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICES. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TERMINATION OF SERVICES PASSED AGAINST THE APPELLANT, BUT, HOWEVER, RESERVING LIBERTY TO THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NOT SATISFIED AND AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE THE RESPONDENTS FILED A WRIT APPEAL BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT. THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE CONCESSION MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. THE APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OF BY AWARDING RS 50,000 TO THE APPELLANT IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF HIS CLAIM. THE APPELLANT, AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, APPROACHED THE HIGH COURT SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER. THE REVIEW PETITION WAS DISMISSED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HE IS BEFORE US, IN THESE APPEALS, CHALLENGING THE SAID ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH. 2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT URGED THAT: (1) THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE APPELLANT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO COMPROMISE BY B MAKING A CONCESSION WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE DIVISION BENCH; AND (2) THE ORDER OF TERMINATION OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT SIMPLICITER BUT WAS PUNITIVE AND STIGMATIC. 3. WE TAKE THE SECOND POINT FOR CONSIDERATION FIRST. THE ORDER OF TERMINATION CONTAINS REFERENCE TO FIVE LETTERS RELATING TO REVIEW OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE APPELLANT. THE ORDER OF TERMINATION IS MADE IN TERMS OF THE STAFF SERVICE REGULATIONS, 1983 OF THE BANK. THE ORDER IS ONE, WHICH READS AS TERMINATION SIMPLICITER. 3. WE TAKE THE SECOND POINT FOR CONSIDERATION FIRST. THE ORDER OF TERMINATION CONTAINS REFERENCE TO FIVE LETTERS RELATING TO REVIEW OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE APPELLANT. THE ORDER OF TERMINATION IS MADE IN TERMS OF THE STAFF SERVICE REGULATIONS, 1983 OF THE BANK. THE ORDER IS ONE, WHICH READS AS TERMINATION SIMPLICITER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, RELYING ON THE LETTERS TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE IN THE ORDER OF TERMINATION OF SERVICES, STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT CERTAIN STATEMENTS MADE IN THOSE LETTERS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE RESPONDENT BANK CONCLUDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT AS TO HIS CERTAIN MISCONDUCT; THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD SHOWED THAT THE ORDER OF TERMINATION OF SERVICES OF THE APPELLANT WAS STIGMATIC AND NOT SIMPLICITER. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE LETTERS REFERRED TO ABOVE RELATING TO THE ORDER OF TERMINATION. THESE LETTERS IN SUBSTANCE SHOW THAT THE RESPONDENTS REVIEWED THE PERFORMANCE OF THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME AND THE RESPONDENT BANK GAVE ADVICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO IMPROVE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT PARTICULARLY DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 9 OF THE LETTER DATED 8-9-1986, WHICH READS AS UNDER: "IT IS ALSO REPORTED THAT WITHOUT GETTING THE NEWSPAPERS TO THE BRANCH YOU HAVE CLAIMED AND TAKEN THE COST OF THE NEWSPAPERS WHICH SPEAKS OF YOUR INTEGRITY AND HONESTY." 5. THIS PORTION OF THE SAID LETTER CANNOT BE READ IN ISOLATION. A PORTION OF THE LETTER CONTAINED IN PARA 9 ITSELF CANNOT BE A GROUND TO SAY THAT THE RESPONDENT BANK CONCLUDED AS TO THE MISCONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT. IF ALL THE LETTERS ARE READ TOGETHER, IT WILL BE CLEAR THAT THE RESPONDENTS ONLY REVIEWED PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK OF THE APPELLANT TO ASSESS HIS SUITABILITY TO CONTINUE IN SERVICE AND HE WAS GIVEN ADVICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE. 6. FROM THE LETTER DATED 8-4-1986 IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ON PROBATION AND HIS PERFORMANCE DURING THE PROBATION PERIOD WAS REVIEWED. IN THE SAID LETTER IT IS STATED THAT ON REVIEW OF HIS PERFORMANCE DURING THE PROBATION PERIOD, IT WAS FOUND THAT HIS OVERALL PERFORMANCE HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE BELOW AVERAGE IN SPITE OF REPEATED COUNSELLING AND ADVICE GIVEN TO HIM TO IMPROVE HIS PERFORMANCE. FOR THAT PURPOSE THE PROBATION PERIOD WAS EXTENDED BY SIX MONTHS. IN THE SAID LETTER IT IS STATED THAT ON REVIEW OF HIS PERFORMANCE DURING THE PROBATION PERIOD, IT WAS FOUND THAT HIS OVERALL PERFORMANCE HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE BELOW AVERAGE IN SPITE OF REPEATED COUNSELLING AND ADVICE GIVEN TO HIM TO IMPROVE HIS PERFORMANCE. FOR THAT PURPOSE THE PROBATION PERIOD WAS EXTENDED BY SIX MONTHS. IN THE LETTER DATED 2-5-1986 HIS PROBATION PERIOD HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW BETTER PERFORMANCE EXPECTING THAT HE WOULD RISE TO THE OCCASION TO MAKE USE OF THE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED TO HIM. EVEN IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE LETTER DATED 8-9-1986, ON WHICH EMPHASIS WAS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT REFERRING TO PARA 9, EXTRACTED ABOVE, IT IS STATED THUS: "WE HAVE MADE A REVIEW OF YOUR PERFORMANCE AT HONNUTAGI BRANCH AND INFORM YOU AS FOLLOWS: YOU HAVE BEEN POSTED TO HONNUTAGI BRANCH IN ORDER TO GIVE YOU ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE YOUR PERFORMANCE, SINCE YOUR PERFORMANCE BOTH AT BELUR AND KANNOLLI BRANCHES WAS NOT SATISFACTORY. FURTHER, YOU HAVE REQUESTED THE HEAD OFFICE TO POST YOU TO HONNUTAGI BRANCH AND IN SPITE OF GIVING YOU THE POSTING TO A PLACE OF YOUR CHOICE, YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN ANY IMPROVEMENT IN YOUR PERFORMANCE." THE LAST PARA OF THE SAME LETTER READS: "YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMMUNICATED THROUGH OUR VARIOUS LETTERS ASKING YOU TO IMPROVE YOUR PERFORMANCE. BUT WE REGRET TO NOTE THAT YOU HAVE NOT COME UP TO THE EXPECTATION. SO YOU ARE ONCE AGAIN ADVISED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE ABOVE POINTS AND IMPROVE." THE LETTER DATED 6-10-1986 ALSO SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS INTERVIEWED ON 26-9-1986 TO CONSIDER HIS SUITABILITY FOR CONFIRMATION AS AN OFFICER AND THAT HE WAS FOUND UNSUITABLE. IN SPITE OF THAT HE WAS GIVEN FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE HIS PERFORMANCE AND STATING THAT IN CASE HE FAILED TO IMPROVE, THE RESPONDENT BANK WOULD CONSIDER TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST HIM IN TERMS OF REGULATION 8 OF THE STAFF SERVICE REGULATIONS OF THE BANK. 7. FROM THESE LETTERS, AS ALREADY NOTICED ABOVE, THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK OF THE APPELLANT DURING HIS PROBATION PERIOD WAS REVIEWED FROM TIME TO TIME ONLY TO ASSESS HIS SUITABILITY FOR CONTINUANCE IN SERVICE AND NOT TO TAKE PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST HIM AND TO ATTACH ANY STIGMA. 7. FROM THESE LETTERS, AS ALREADY NOTICED ABOVE, THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK OF THE APPELLANT DURING HIS PROBATION PERIOD WAS REVIEWED FROM TIME TO TIME ONLY TO ASSESS HIS SUITABILITY FOR CONTINUANCE IN SERVICE AND NOT TO TAKE PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST HIM AND TO ATTACH ANY STIGMA. IF THE RESPONDENT BANK HAD ANY SUCH INTENTION TO TERMINATE HIS SERVICES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT THE EARLIEST WITHOUT GIVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO HIM. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT REFERRED TO IN PARA 9 OF THE LETTER DATED 8-9-1986 IN ISOLATION CANNOT BE TAKEN AS THE FOUNDATION FOR TERMINATION OF THE SERVICES OF THE APPELLANT. ALL THESE LETTERS INDICATE THAT THEIR MOTIVE WAS TO ASSESS THE SUITABILITY OF THE APPELLANT TO CONTINUE IN SERVICE. IN THIS VIEW THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF TERMINATION OF THE SERVICES OF THE APPELLANT, COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT EVEN ON MERITS, APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE DIVISION BENCH PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE BASIS OF CONCESSION OR SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS EXPRESSED THROUGH THE ADVOCATE. IN VIEW OF THE CONCLUSION WE HAVE ARRIVED AT ON THE SECOND CONTENTION IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE FIRST CONTENTION ONLY FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSE. SINCE THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH AND THE APPELLANT GOT THE BENEFIT OF GETTING RS 50,000 IN SETTLEMENT OF HIS CLAIM, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DISTURB THE SAME. 8. HENCE, FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, THE APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY IT IS DISMISSED. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.