JUDGMENT (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.): 1. The petitioner on acquiring the qualification of XIIth standard pass came to be appointed as a Junior Clerk on temporary basis with effect from 1st June, 1990 and he joined the office of the Director General of Police. He was a candidate sponsored by the Employment Exchange, but did not go through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission examination. Though his initial appointment was for three months, he continued upto 9th May, 1996. On 17th February, 1995 the Government of Maharashtra took a policy decision for regularization of temporarily appointed clerks in various Government establishments located in Mumbai city between the period from 10th January, 1990 to 31st December, 1992, in the post of Clerk/Clerk-cum-Typist/Typist. The M.P.S.C., on 27th March, 1995 conducted a special competitive examination for all these temporary appointees appointed between 10th January, 1990 to 31st December, 1992. The M.P.S.C. forwarded a list of 107 such appointees who were found to be successful for regularization in Government service as Clerk/Clerk-cum-Typist/Typist in different establishments located within the limits of Greater Mumbai and the petitioner was amongst these 107 persons recommended by the M.P.S.C. The State Government, therefore, issued a resolution on 9th June, 1996 for the regularization of these 107 Clerk/Clerk-cum-Typist/Typist/Typists and their names were set out in Schedule “A” to the said G.R. From the office of the Director General of Police there were three Clerks, whose services were sought to be regularized and the name of the petitioner was at serial No.2. On 5th August, 1996 an order came to be passed from the office of the Director General of Police, Mumbai for the regularization of all these three clerks i.e. Ms. P.R. Chougule, Shri S.N. Katkar and Shri N.R. Parve (the present petitioner). The said order also stated that the seniority of the three clerks so appointed would be determined in terms of para.2 of the G.R. Dated 9th June, 1996 and the seniority list was published thereafter showing the petitioner at serial No.3 and his initial date of appointment was shown as 1st June, 1990. This publication of seniority clearly indicated that the petitioner was treated to be in continuous service from 1st June, 1990. He was also granted his annual increment of Rs.20/- as per the order dated 10th July, 1997. This publication of seniority clearly indicated that the petitioner was treated to be in continuous service from 1st June, 1990. He was also granted his annual increment of Rs.20/- as per the order dated 10th July, 1997. All of a sudden an order came to be issued on 12th November, 1997 thereby discontinuing the employment of the petitioner and without giving the prescribed notice of one month, but was paid the salary of notice period. This order came to be challenged before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal under O.A. No.626 of 1997. 2. The State Government opposed the said O.A., by filing reply. The Tribunal by its order dated 26th June, 1998 was pleased to dismiss the Original Application and the interim relief granted earlier also was directed to be vacated. While issuing notice, this Court by its order dated 28th July, 1998 directed the parties to maintain status quo and while admitting the petition on 29th August, 1998 by way of interim relief the termination order dated 12th November, 1997 came to be stayed. Consequently, the petitioner has continued in service all along. The Tribunal set out the reasons in paragraph 5 of its order for dismissal of the Original Application as follows:- “5. Although the petitioner has been appointed as a Clerk in an ad hoc capacity from time to time his regular appointment commenced only from 9.7.1996, the date on which the State Government issued an order in this respect. Consequently the termination order has to be considered as within 2 years of this date. It is also not disputed that a criminal case has been filed against the petitioner under Section 498, 304-B and 34 of the I.P.C. If on this ground the petitioner was considered as unsuitable for retention in public service, such a ground can be considered to be motive for the petitioner’s discharge during the period of probation ad not so much the foundation thereof. The position might have been different if the petitioner had been confirmed in his post. As things stand the impugned order is a non-stigmatic order discharging the petitioner from service and in our opinion cannot be faulted.” 3. The only question that arises for our consideration is whether the order dated 12th November, 1997 which is an order of discharge simplicitor from the regular employment of the Government is sustainable. As things stand the impugned order is a non-stigmatic order discharging the petitioner from service and in our opinion cannot be faulted.” 3. The only question that arises for our consideration is whether the order dated 12th November, 1997 which is an order of discharge simplicitor from the regular employment of the Government is sustainable. The Tribunal held that though the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in ad hoc capacity from time to time, his regular appointment commenced only from 9th July, 1996 and consequently he was required to be considered on probation which period would end only after 2 years. The Tribunal also noted that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498, 304-B read with 34 of the I.P.C. The Tribunal further proceeded to consider as to whether the petitioner was unfit to be retained in service when during the period of probation a criminal case was registered against him. It noted that the impugned order was non-stigmatic and the petitioner was not a confirmed employee and, therefore, discharge simplicitor could not be faulted with. 4. In our opinion, the reasoning set out by the Tribunal is contrary to the well established legal position in service jurisprudence. The petitioner was not appointed on probation for the first time with effect from 9th July, 1996. As noted earlier on his regularization in service as per the G.R. dated 9th July, 1996 the seniority list was published and in the said seniority list his service was counted from 1st June, 1990. The order dated 5th August, 1996 issued in favour of the petitioner clearly stated that pursuant to the G.R. dated 9th June, 1996 his service was regularized from the said date. The Tribunal fell in gross error in reading this order as an order of appointment on probation. The petitioner was in the regular employment of the Government and that being so he could not have been removed from service by an order of discharge simplicitor. The procedure as required under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1979 was mandatory. Even by a non-stigmatic order a regular employee of the State Government cannot be removed by way of discharge simplicitor, unless it is an order of compulsory retirement in public interest. 5. The procedure as required under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1979 was mandatory. Even by a non-stigmatic order a regular employee of the State Government cannot be removed by way of discharge simplicitor, unless it is an order of compulsory retirement in public interest. 5. Now coming to the criminal case registered against the petitioner i.e. C.R. No.397 of 1997 on 14th August, 1997 is concerned, there is no dispute that pursuant to the said complaint he came to be tried in Sessions Case No. 377 of 1998 and as per the judgment and order dated 9th December, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge he came to be acquitted. There is no challenge to the said order of acquittal and hence the acquittal order has received its finality. It is also not the case of the State Government that after the petitioner was reinstated pursuant to the stay order passed by this Court, any adverse entry in the service record has been made and that by itself indicates that his service record is satisfactory. 6. It is also required to be noted that in all the Government establishments located within the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai area the Class III posts were required to be filled in through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission. When the petitioner joined on 1st June, 1990 he was not a candidate selected by the M.P.S.C., and he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. However, as per the policy decision taken by the Government the petitioner appeared for the limited competitive examination conducted by the M.P.S.C., and the M.P.S.C., recommended his name for regularization of service. That is how the G.R. dated 9th July, 1996 was issued. Under these circumstances, the petitioner could not be treated to be a back door entrant. After he was selected by the M.P.S.C., the State Government decided to regularise him in service and for the purpose of his seniority the initial date of appointment i.e. 1st June, 1990 was taken into consideration. For all these reasons, the view taken by the Tribunal is grossly erroneous and if allowed to continue, it would result in miscarriage of justice. 7. In the premises this petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is quashed and set aside. For all these reasons, the view taken by the Tribunal is grossly erroneous and if allowed to continue, it would result in miscarriage of justice. 7. In the premises this petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The order of termination dated 12th November, 1997 is also quashed and set aside and consequently O.A. No. 626 of 1997 stands allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.