The petitioner was recruited as Constable in JKAP, 13th Bn on 30-8-1989. He was transferred to the Unit vide APHP order No. 360 dated 30-8-1989 and was undergoing basic RTC at APTC, Kathua. The petitioner, however, absented unauthorizedly during training from 27th September, 1990. He did not rejoin his duty till 14-11-1990. Vide order No. 697 of 1989 dated 12-12-1989, petitioner was struck off from the roll of the Training Centre by the Commandant. It was on 14-11-1990, the petitioner appeared before the Commandant, JKAP IV Bn, Srinagar and was permitted to rejoin on 14-11-1990 when explained his absence on account of acute disease with which he was suffering. The petitioner along with colleagues was relieved from the Unit on 28-12-1990 and again directed to report to Commandant 13th Bn, Kathua to undergo basic RTC, where he never reported for training. The petitioner, therefore, unauthorizedly absented from 28-12-1990 and did not report for training in APHQ, Kathua, where he was deputed to undergo basic RTC. Vide Signal No. 4686-89 dated 14-3-1991, the petitioner was directed through concerned Police Station to resume his duties immediately failing with he will be removed from service. Despite intimation to the petitioner to resume the duties, as reported back by SHO, Police Station, vide Signal No. 22/PP dated 20-3-1991, he did not care to resume the duties till date and thereby absented himself unauthorizedly for 130 days. Therefore, vide order No. 475 dated 6th May, 1991 issued by Commandant, JKAP IV Bn., Channi Himmat, Jammu, the petitioner was removed from service, as unauthorized absence of the recruit Constable amounted to gross mis-conduct and indiscipline and loss of appointment contemplated under Article 128 of J&K Civil Services Regulations and Rules 208 (9) of J&K Police Manual. It is this order of removal of the petitioner from the service, which became the subject matter of challenge in this petition. The stand of the respondents in their demurrer filed to the writ petition is that the petitioner was only recruit Constable on probation and had been removed from service because of his unauthorized absence from duty for a space of 130 days. It is further stated that despite notice to resume duties, which the petitioner received and failed to resume, has occasioned in his removal from service. It is further stated that despite notice to resume duties, which the petitioner received and failed to resume, has occasioned in his removal from service. That the recruit Constable was on probation and surrendered his employment by remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty/the basic Training Course twice from the Armed Police Training Centre, Kathua. Heard Mr. C.M. Gupta, leaned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. K.S. Johal, Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents, in extenso. I have also perused the record meticulously. The main plank of the petitioners contention is that no notice/charge sheet was given to the petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard was afforded to him, before passing the order of removal from service. That the order of removal is not in accord with Article 128 of the J&K CSR and the Rules of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Manual applicable to the petitioner and thus, is not sustainable in law. It is not in dispute that the recruit Constable was on probation and was deputed to undergo basic RTC at ATPC, Kathua. It is further gatherable from the record that the petitioner absented twice from the Training Course. The petitioner was, however, allowed to rejoin when explained to the Commandant, VI Bn, about his acute disease with which he was suffering. He was again sent to undergo basic RTC a ATPC, Kathua, but did not rejoin. It is further borne out from the record that the petitioner was informed through wireless message to resume his duties and despite receipt of the intimation from the territorial SHO, he did not care to respond and resume the duty. The Competent Authority found that the petitioners unauthorized absence for 130 days indicated that the recruit Constable is not willing to serve the Department any more and even if he is willing to serve he is not going to prove a good Police Officer. The unauthorized absence of the recruit Constable was taken as indiscipline, gross mis-conduct and loss of appointment, and was ordered for the removal of Constable from service, as contemplated under the provisions of Article 128 of J&K CSR and Rules 208 (9) of J&K Police Manual. Mr. C. M. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently, urged that a notice/charge sheet was required to be given to the petitioner before his discharge from service by impugned order notwithstanding that he was a probationer. Mr. C. M. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently, urged that a notice/charge sheet was required to be given to the petitioner before his discharge from service by impugned order notwithstanding that he was a probationer. He further stated that the order impugned is not legally sustainable being violative of natural justice, as no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner. On going through the record and the order impugned, it is indisputably gatherable that the unauthorized absence of the petitioner from Police Training Centre, Kathua, induced the respondents to pass the order of removal from service. A plenary reading of the order No. 475 of 1991 dated 6-5-1991 clearly reveals that proper notices were issued to the petitioner to rejoin his duties. It is further borne out that despite intimation by the concerned SHO, territorial jurisdiction, the petitioner did not resume the duties and continued to remain absent from the duty he was deputed to APTC, Kathua for basic RTC. A recruit Constable who shirks from undergoing basic RTC and remains absent, how could he be termed as suitable and efficient Officer for the Police Force. Examination of Rule 187 and Sub-rule (10) of Rule 359 clearly reveals that a Constable, who has proved to be unlikely to become an efficient Police Officer, may be discharged/removed from service within three years of his enrollment. Normally, a Constable of the Police Force cannot be removed from the Police Force without conducting the enquiry, as provided under Rule 359 of the J&K Police Manual, but while holding enquiry under Rule 187, the provisions of Rule 359 have to be followed, so far procedural matters such as recording of evidence is concerned. Sub-rule (10) of Rule 359 provides an exception while dealing with the case of a probationer. Sub-rule (10) states in unequivocal terms that Rule 359 has no application, where the services of a probationer are to be terminated whether during or at the end of the period of probation. This exclusionary sub-rule (10) of Rule 359 providing exception in case of probationers reads as under: "359. PROCEDURE IN DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRIES:- 1)------ (10) This rule shall also not apply where it is proposed to terminate the employment of a probationer whether during or at the end of the period of probation". This exclusionary sub-rule bears the mandate of holding the enquiry, as required by Rule, 187. PROCEDURE IN DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRIES:- 1)------ (10) This rule shall also not apply where it is proposed to terminate the employment of a probationer whether during or at the end of the period of probation". This exclusionary sub-rule bears the mandate of holding the enquiry, as required by Rule, 187. A successful completion of probation period is a condition precedent for confirmation. Purpose of sending the recruit Constable to a basic RTC is to test the suitability of the recruit and if the Appointing Authority finds that the candidate is not suitable, which certainly has the power to terminate the service of a probationer. It, therefore, follows that the exclusionary sub-rule incorporating provisions under Rule 359 to deal with the probationers is required to be mandatorily observed. It is the only rule, in other words, under which the probationers suitability is to be determined. Mr. C. M. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that a probationer is a temporary servant, he is also entitled to seek direction and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily or his services cannot be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice. To support his contention, Mr. C. M. Gupta placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in V. P. Ahuja Versus State of Punjab; AIR 2000 SC 1080. In this case, in the termination order, it was found that the petitioner has failed in the performance of his duties administratively and technically. Such an order was ex-facie stigmatic, which could not have been passed without holding regular enquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. But in the instant case, the intention aimed in the impugned order manifestly is that because of unauthorized absence, the order has been passed and thus, is neither stigmatic nor punitive. It is apt to point out that the Competent Authority is well within power to look into the performance and work of the probationer during the probation period. In case his work and performance during the probation period has been unsatisfactorily, the Competent Authority is well within its right to terminate the service of the petitioner without holding an enquiry. I do not find any substance in the submission made by Mr. C. M. Gupta that holding of an enquiry was essential before passing the impugned order. In case his work and performance during the probation period has been unsatisfactorily, the Competent Authority is well within its right to terminate the service of the petitioner without holding an enquiry. I do not find any substance in the submission made by Mr. C. M. Gupta that holding of an enquiry was essential before passing the impugned order. Sub-rule 10 of Rule 359 of J&K Police Manual specifically debars the holding of enquiry in case of a probationer, here petitioner in this case, during the period of probation or at the end of the probation. The foundation of the order is unauthorized absence training period. Non-issuance and non-service of notice, as pleaded by Mr. Gupta, is neither factually nor legally correct. This plea does not merit acceptance and the argument, therefore, does not hold good. For the reasons, discussed above, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition and is accordingly dismissed.