1. Petitioner, Naseer Ahmad Khan has filed this writ petition, challenging his order of removal from service, bearing No. 555 of 2001 dated 30-7-2001, on the ground that he was a probationer at the relevant point of lime, and came to be discharged on the allegation constituting misconduct. Respondents had to conduct enquiry in the matter and provide him an opportunity of being heard. 2. Respondents have resisted the petition on the grounds taken in the counter. The crux of the case is as to whether petitioner was to be heard before passing the impugned order of removal and whether any enquiry was required to be conducted in terms of the provisions of the relevant law and the rules. The answer is in negative for the following grounds: 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was on probation was deputed for undergoing training to PTS Manigam, but he remained unauthorizedly absent from the said training centre. He was directed to report back to District Police Lines, Kupwara, but he-failed to report back and the impugned order came to be passed, only on the ground that he cannot become a good police official. 4. The impugned order on the face of it is neither stigmatic nor punitive in nature. How can a police officer become efficient police officer, when he fails to undergo training course and remains un-authorizedly absent. The apex court while dealing with an identical case titled Commandant, 11th. Vs. B.Shanker Naik, AIR 2003 SC 2249, has held that when a probationer fails to pass training course, he can be terminated from service during probation. It is apt to reproduce para 6 of the judgment hereunder: "...........A person who is sent for training is required to be comprehended as to what is the effect of the training. If after completion of the training, it is found by the authorities that the trainee has not succeeded in the test conducted after training, the inevitable conclusion is that he has not undertaken training successfully. It has to be construed that the requirements stipulated in the appointment orders were not fully complied with. When the recruit was to undertake ten months basic training, it obviously means successful completion of the training. Undisputedly the same has not been done. The authorities were justified in passing the order of discharge. This position gets crystal clear when some of the relevant provisions case considered." 5. When the recruit was to undertake ten months basic training, it obviously means successful completion of the training. Undisputedly the same has not been done. The authorities were justified in passing the order of discharge. This position gets crystal clear when some of the relevant provisions case considered." 5. The apex court in case State of Punjab & others Vs. Sukhwinder Singh: 2005 AIR SCW 3477, has held that when a probationer is discharge from service on the ground of absence from duty, as he is not likely to become an efficient police officer and further held that it cannot be said that the said order was based upon misconduct and was thus punitive in nature. 6. This court in case Mohammad Shafi Vs. State and others, 2000 SLJ 603, has held that when a probationer remains absent, no enquiry is required enabling the competent authority to pass order of discharge. 7. A division bench of this court in yet another LPA No. 74/2005, titled Rias Ahmad Khan Vs. State of J&K & others, has held that when the facts simply provide motive to the employer to dispense with the services of a probation, that cannot be said to be stigmatic. In the instant case, the competent authority observed that the petitioner had failed to undergo training course and has remained absent and observed that he cannot become an efficient officer and accordingly on that foundation passed the impugned order. Thus misconduct is not the foundation of the impugned order. 8. A Division Bench in LPA Nos. 218/2005, 219/2005 and 109/2006 held that in terms of police rules, no notice is required to be served upon the probationer nor was he entitled to be afforded an opportunity of being heard when the order on the face of it is order of discharge simpliciter. Same view was expressed by the apex court in case Mathev P. Thomas Vs. Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation, AIR 2003 SC 1789. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition being without force, is accordingly dismissed.