ORDER : Leave granted. 2. Heard the parties. 3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 18.11.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal Bench in Writ Appeal No. 83/2004 (R. K. Angousana Singh v. Sainik School Society, 2006(7) S.L.R. 199 : 2006(40) AIC 330) setting aside the order of the learned single Judge. This appeal is preferred by the Sainik School Society the appointing authority. 4. Briefly stated the facts are as follows. Respondent was appointed to the post of Nursing Assistant in Sainik School, Imphal on probation for a period of one year. The period of probation was extendable to two years. The period of probation was extended by one year upto 07.11.2004 for further observations by an order dated 24.10.2003. Since the Respondent had not been accounting for various amounts taken by him, a notice dated 26.10.2004 was issued to him. Thereafter, by an order dated 04.11.2004, he was terminated from service. The order of termination dated 04.11.2004 reads as under: "CONFIDENTIAL Ref: SSI/110/Adm 04 Nov. 2004 Shri R.K. Angousana Singh Nursing Assistant Sainik School, Imphal TERMINATION OF SERVICE 1. Reference this office school letter of even No. dated 30 Oct., 2002. 2. Your services would no longer be required with immediate effect. You are entitled to draw an amount of one month salary in lieu of the notice period. 3. You are, therefore, required to hand over the stores held by you to the Board detailed for this purpose. You are advised to carry out clearance and hand over the quarters to the Quartermaster latest by 05 Nov., 2004 (AN). Sd/- (MS Bhandari) Wing Commander, Principal. 5. The Principal of the school terminated the services of the Respondent in exercise of the powers vested in him under Rule 7.08 of Chapter-VII (Terms and Conditions of Service) of the Sainik School Society's Rules and Regulations. Rule 7.08 reads as under: "7.08. During the period of probation, the Principal may terminated the services of any member of staff, appointed by him under his own powers, after giving him one month's notice in writing and without assigning any reason. Reciprocally, any member of staff on probation may leave after giving one month's notice of resignation or surrendering one month's salary. 6. Aggrieved by the order of termination, he preferred a writ petition before the learned single Judge. Reciprocally, any member of staff on probation may leave after giving one month's notice of resignation or surrendering one month's salary. 6. Aggrieved by the order of termination, he preferred a writ petition before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge, after hearing counsel on both sides at length, comes to the conclusion, in our view rightly, that the absence of one month's notice to the Petitioner before issuing the termination order will not effect the validity of the order because under the order of termination itself the Petitioner is entitled to get one month's salary in lieu of the said one month's notice. 7. The learned Division Bench upset the well-reasoned findings recorded by learned single Judge by citing several judgments of this Court which are irrelevant for the purpose of decision of the case at hand. In our view, the learned Division Bench erroneously held that when the statute prescribe one month's notice then giving one month's notice is mandatory. 8. By now, it is well-settled in service jurisprudence that one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice is sufficient compliance of one month's notice. In other words, if the incumbent is paid one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice that would constitute sufficient notice of one month. On this short question, the reasoning recorded by the Division Bench is not tenable in law. It is, accordingly, set aside. The order of the learned single Judge is restored. 9. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.