JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. : This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.4.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.525 of 2000 dismissing the said O.A. which was filed by the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the service record of the petitioner. 2. The O.A. was filed by the petitioner against the im¬pugned order of termination from service dated 27.5.1999 (Annex¬ure-2) passed in a disciplinary proceeding by the General Manag¬er, Indian Ordinance Factories, Ordinance Factory. Badmal in the district of Bolangir which is an organization in the Ministry of Defence, Government of India and also against the letter dated 11.1.2000 (Annexure-3) communicating the order of the Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and thereby confirming the order of termination passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 3. The brief of the case are that the petitioner was ap¬pointed as a Fireman Grade II vide order dated 25.2.1995, inter alia, with the following conditions : “xx xx xx (b) The post is temporary. In the event of its becoming permanent your claim for permanency will be considered in accord¬ance with the rules in force. (c) You will be on probation for a period of two years and that period is extendable at the discretion of the General Manag¬er. (d) Your services may be terminated at any time during the probationary period without notices and without assigning any reasons. (e) you will be subject to conditions of services as ap¬plicable to temporary civilian Govt. servant in accordance with the orders issued by the Govt. of India from time to time. xx xx xx” 4. Consequent to the above mentioned appointment order the petitioner submitted his joining report on 25.3.1995. 5. During his service period he was issued warnings and punishment orders. Vide order dated 9.10.1996 he was advised to improve his attendance and to be regular for his work failing which disciplinary action would be liable to be taken against him. Thereafter vide order dated 11.8.1997 he was awarded punish¬ment pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 4.7.1997 and the disci¬plinary inquiry. During his service period he was issued warnings and punishment orders. Vide order dated 9.10.1996 he was advised to improve his attendance and to be regular for his work failing which disciplinary action would be liable to be taken against him. Thereafter vide order dated 11.8.1997 he was awarded punish¬ment pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 4.7.1997 and the disci¬plinary inquiry. The following relevant portion of the punishment order dated 11.8.1997 is reproduced as under : “Taking a lenient view being the first misconduct, the undersigned, therefore, imposes penalty of withholding of one increment of pay when due for a period of ONE year without cumu¬lative effect” on the said Shri S.C. Sethy, Fireman Gr. II/FB of O.F. Badmal. Shri S.C. Sethy, Fireman Gr.II is hereby further warned that he should be more careful in his conduct and any future lapse/breach on his part will be viewed as aggravated in view hereof rendering him liable to severe disciplinary action accord¬ingly.” 6. Thereafter, again one more punishment order was passed against him on 23.9.1998 as a result of a disciplinary proceeding which is quoted as under : “ORDINANCE FACTORY BADMAL FACTORY ORDER PART II BY SRI T.K. BANERJEE, IOFS GENERAL MANAGER No. 768 Date 23.09.98 Sub : NIE - DISCIPLINE- IMPOSING OF PENALTY IN RESPECT OF SHRI S.C. SETHY, FIREMAN GR. II/FB SECTION OF/OF BADMAL As a result of disciplinary action having been taken on a account of conduct unbecoming of a Govt. Servant-viz I) Unautho¬rised absent from duty 2) Irregular attendance and (3) Habitual offender, penalty of WITHHOLDING OF NEXT INCRE¬MENTS OF PAY FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS WITHOUT COMMULATIVE EFFECT HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON Sri S.C. Sethy, Fireman Gr.II of FB. Section of Ordinance Factory, Badmal.” 7. The probation period of the petitioner was extended from time to time. However, the same was extended with retrospec¬tive effect. 8. Thereafter his services were terminated by a simplici¬tor order dated 27.5.1999 as mentioned above. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 3.8.1999. Thereafter the above mentioned O.A. was filed before the Tribunal which was dismissed, hence the writ petition. 9. However, the same was extended with retrospec¬tive effect. 8. Thereafter his services were terminated by a simplici¬tor order dated 27.5.1999 as mentioned above. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 3.8.1999. Thereafter the above mentioned O.A. was filed before the Tribunal which was dismissed, hence the writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was two years probation period and after expiry of probation period there should be deemed confirmation of the petitioner and as the probation period was extended with retro¬spective effect the same is not liable to be given any waitage. Further he has submitted that the purpose of keeping a person on probation is to evaluate his work and to inform him of his faults, for the purpose of giving him liberty to improve himself. But by extending the period of probation with retrospective effect, the purpose of probation was frustrated and therefore the extension of the period of probation with retrospective effect is bad in law. 10. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. Jena has submitted that according to the terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner, it cannot be said that there was deemed confirmation of the petitioner at the end of the period of probation. Besides this, the appointing authority has every jurisdiction to extend the period of probation and the orders in that regard may be passed at any stage even with retrospective effect. He has further submitted that under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 the services of a tempo¬rary employee can be terminated at any time by giving him one month’s notice or with immediate effect on his entitlement to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of one month in lieu of notice. 11. The conditions mentioned in the appointment order of the petitioner as quoted above show that the post, in which the petitioner was appointed, was a temporary one. His initial period of probation was two years and could be extendable at the discre¬tion of the General Manager, but no limit of period was mentioned for that purpose. Further, it was specifically mentioned therein that his case for confirmation would be considered in accordance with the rules when the post would be made permanent. His initial period of probation was two years and could be extendable at the discre¬tion of the General Manager, but no limit of period was mentioned for that purpose. Further, it was specifically mentioned therein that his case for confirmation would be considered in accordance with the rules when the post would be made permanent. Although, it was mentioned in the order of appointment that his services may be terminated at any time during the probationary period without notice and without assigning any reason, but even if his services are continued beyond the probationary period, his status of a temporary Government servant would remain to continue and the statutory rules, i.e., Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 would be applicable in his service. 12. The Tribunal in its impugned judgment has referred the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases. It has referred the case of Sukhbans Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1711 in which the word probation has been defined. According to the same, meaning of ‘probation’ means ‘testing of a persons’s production capacity, conduct or charac¬ter, especially before is admitted to regular appointment. Ac¬cording to Webster Dictionary, the word ‘probation’ is said to have been derived from the Latin word ‘Probation’ and French word ‘Probre’, meanings to “try, examine, proof” and is defined “as any proceeding designed to ascertain truth to determine charac¬ter, qualification etc. examination, trial or a period of trial as to engage a person on production”. Further it has referred the case of Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras, AIR 1964 SC 806 , wherein it has been held that a person appointed on probation would be ordinarily get automatic confirmation in service on the expiry of the stipulated period,. Also in the case of Municipal Corporation, Raipur v. Ashok Kumar Mishra, AIR 1991 SC 1402 , it has been held by the Hon’ble apex Court that there is no concept of deemed confirmation in law and therefore express order of confirmation is necessary. 13. Also in the case of Municipal Corporation, Raipur v. Ashok Kumar Mishra, AIR 1991 SC 1402 , it has been held by the Hon’ble apex Court that there is no concept of deemed confirmation in law and therefore express order of confirmation is necessary. 13. Even if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that the extension order of the probation period was bad in law and is to be ignored, the petitioner cannot be deemed to be a confirmed employee as in his service condition it has been specifically mentioned that the post in which he was appointed was a temporary one and in the event of its becoming permanent, his case for confirmation would be considered separately. 14. This is also a fact that the petitioner got warnings and was also awarded punishments from time to time during the period of probation. The opposite parties had every power to judge his suitability the service. 15. Now it is to be seen as to whether the impugned order of termination has been passed following the termination of service rules for temporary Government servant or not. The peti¬tioner was appointed on temporary basis in a temporary post the above quoted rules are applicable in his case. In this regard, the definition of temporary service given in Clause (d) of Rule 2 as well as Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 in respect of termination of temporary service which are quoted as under : “2. Definitions : In these rules, unless the context other¬wise requires- (a) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (c) xx xx xx (d “temporary service” means the service of a temporary Government servant in a temporary post or officiating service in a permanent post, under the Government of India.” “5. Definitions : In these rules, unless the context other¬wise requires- (a) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (c) xx xx xx (d “temporary service” means the service of a temporary Government servant in a temporary post or officiating service in a permanent post, under the Government of India.” “5. Termination of temporary service- (1) (a) The services of a temporary Government servant who is not in quasi-permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the Appoint¬ing Authority or by the Appointing Authority to the Government servant : (b) The period of such notice shall be borne one month : Provided that the service of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one mouth. Note - The following procedure shall be adopted by the appointing authority while serving notice on such Government servant under Clause (a)- (i) The notice shall be delivered or tendered to the Govern¬ment servant in person. (ii) Where personal service is not practicable, the notice shall be served on such Government servant by Registered post acknowledgement due at the address of the Government servant available with the Appointing Authority. (iii) If the notice sent by registered post is returned un servant it shall be published in the official Gazette and upon such publication, it shall be deemed to have been personally served on such Government servant on the date it was published in the official Gazette.” 16. In the case of State of U.P. and another v.Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991 (1) SLR 606 = 1991 (1) SCC 691 , the Hon’ble apex Court has held that :- “a temporary Government servant has no right to hold the post, his services are liable to be terminated by giving him one month’s notice without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary Government servants. A temporary Government servant can, however, be dismissed from service by way of punishment. Whenever, the competent authority is satisfied that the work and conduct of a temporary servant is not satisfactory or that his continuance in service is not in public interest on account of his unsuitability, misconduct or inefficiency, it may either terminate his services in accordance with the terms and condi¬tions of the service or the relevant rules or it may decide to take punitive action against the temporary Government servant. If it decides to take punitive action it may hold a formal inquiry by framing charges and giving opportunity to the Government servant in accordance with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. Since a temporary Government servant is also enti¬tled to the protection of Article 311(2) in the same manner as a permanent Government servant, very often the question arises whether an order of termination is in accordance with the con¬tract of service and relevant rules regulating the temporary employment or it is by way of punishment. It is now well-settled that the form of the order is not conclusive and it is open to the Court to determine the true nature of the order. In Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 1958 SCR 828 , a Constitution Bench of this Court held that the mere use of such expressions like ‘terminate’ or ‘discharge is not conclusive and in spite of the use of such expressions, the Court may determine the true nature of the order of ascertain whether the action taken against the Government servant is punitive in nature. The Court further held that in determining the true nature of the order the Court should apply two tests namely : (1) whether the temporary Government servant had a right to the post or the rank or (2) whether he has been visited with evil consequences; and if either of the tests is satisfied, it must be held that the order of termination of a temporary Government servant is by way of punishment. It must be borne in mind that a temporary Government servant has no right to hold the post and termination of such a Government servant does not visit him with any evil consequences. It must be borne in mind that a temporary Government servant has no right to hold the post and termination of such a Government servant does not visit him with any evil consequences. The evil consequences as held in Parshotam Lal Dhingra’s case (supra) do not include the termination of services of a temporary Government servant in accordance with the terms and conditions of service. The view taken by the Constitution Bench in Dhingra’s case has been reit¬erated and affirmed by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the State of Orissa and another v. Ram Narayan Das, 1961 (1) SCR 606 , R.C. Lacy v. The State of Bihar and another, C.A. No.590/62 decided on 23.10.1963, Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. The Union of India 1964(5) SCR 190 , Jagdish Mitter v. The Union of India, 1964 AIR SC 449, A.G. Benjamin v. Union of India, C.A. No.1341/66 decided on 13.12.1966, Shamsher Singh & another v. State of Punjab, 1975(I) SCR 814 . These decisions have been discussed and followed by a three Judge Bench in State of Punjab and another v. Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur, 1968(3) SCR 234 . 17. The substance of the order is a simplicitor one and does not cast any stigma upon the petitioner. The status of the petitioner was of a temporary Government servant even after the expiry of the probation period as there was no deem confirmation in view of the contention imposed in his appointment order and therefore his services were terminated on the ground of unsuit¬ability by an innocuous order under the statutory rules which can in no term be said as illegal. 18. In the instant case, it cannot be said that there was no material against the petitioner on the basis of which it could be presumed that his services were not terminated on the basis of unsuitability in service. Therefore, we find no illegality, impropriety or manifest error of law in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, dismissing the O.A. of the petitioner. The writ petition is misconceived and is therefore dis¬missed. No order as to cost. N. PRUSTY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.