Judgment 1. This petition seeks quashing of notice of termination dated 5.10.2007, Annexure P.13. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Lecturer Communication Skill with the Management of Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chhapianwali, Malout. He was selected on 27.7.2006 vide Annexure P. 6. He was given appointment letter dated 28.7.2006, Annexure P.7. He joined service on 31.7.2006. He was given another letter dated 26.5.2007 to the effect that he will be on probation for a period of one year w.e.f. 1.8.2007. Thereafter, his salary was reduced on his questioning this, He was served termination notice dated 5.10.2007, Annexure P. 13. His work and conduct was satisfactory as per certificate dated 3.9.2007 issued to him. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that order of termination of his services amounted to a stigma and the same having been passed without any enquiry, was illegal, in view of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in VP Ahuja v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2000 SC 1080, 2000(2) SLR 1 (SC]. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. As per the letter of appointment, Annexure P.7, appointment of the petitioner as terminable by one months notice. The appointment was contractual. The appointment was to come to an end on 31.1.2007. Vide letter Annexure P.9 dated 26.5.2007, the petitioner was given appointment on probation for one year. Vide letter dated 5.10.2007, Annexure P.13, services of the petitioner have been terminated in terms of Clause 8 of the appointment letter on the ground that his services were not satisfactory. 6. The question for consideration is whether termination of services on the ground that the same were not satisfactory, can be held to be stigmatic. 7. In Municipal Committee, Sirsa v. Munshi Ram, AIR 2005 SC 792 : [2005(2) SLR 288 (SC], it was observed :- "......the mere fact that there was a misconduct on the part of the respondent which was not enquired into ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that the order of the termination is colourable and in fact is a punitive order." Reference was also made to judgment of three Judges Bench in H.F. Sangati v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and others, (2001)3 SCC 117, taking similar view. It was concluded as under : "17. It was concluded as under : "17. As noticed above in the instant case, the respondent having been appointed as a probationer and his working having been found not to the satisfaction of the employer, it was open to the management to terminate his services. Assuming that there was an incident of misconduct or incompetency prior to his discharge from service, the same cannot be ipso facto be termined as misconduct requiring an inquiry. It may be a ground for the employers assessment of the workmans efficiency and efficacy to retain him in service, unless, of course, the workman is able to satisfy that the management for reasons other than efficiency wanted to remove him from services by exercising its power of discharge." 8. In view of above, the judgment relied upon on behalf of the petitioner has to be held to be on its own facts, not laying down an inflexible rule that wherever termination is on account of unsatisfactory work, enquiry was required. The petition is dismissed.