1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is admitted to hearing and taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. Petitioner came to be appointed as a Librarian in Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology (SKUAST) pursuant to Notification No. 04 (Est.) of 2009 dated 01-01-2009. The appointment to the said post was made vide order No. 82 (Est) of 2009 dated 02-03-2009. He was put on probation for a period of 2 years in pursuance of Section 9 of Chapter II (Appointment of Officers and Teachers of the University) of SKUAST Statutes read with J & K Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956, as defined at Rule 21(1) (b) together with Rule 22(1) (b). In terms of this Section, the probation period can be extended for a period up to one year by appointing authority if the work and conduct of an employee is required to be watched for some more time. The grievance of the petitioner is that he stands discharged in terms of order No. 57 (Est) of 2010 dated 10.12,2010 on account of his work and conduct found poor and un-satisfactory during the period from the date of his joining the post till the date, this order came to be passed. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that the termination of petitioner from service is stigmatic/punitive and not a discharge simplicitor. In order to substantiate this plea, he contends that vide communication dated 02.12.2010, various acts of misconduct are shown to have been committed by the petitioner. The foundation for his discharge was the alleged misconduct reflected in the communication dated 02.12.2010. Even though, the order of termination on the face of it appeared to be termination simplicitor, in reality, it was the outcome of deliberations made and, therefore, was the foundation for the order of termina­tion. He submits that the respondents were required to hold an enquiry to the alleged mis-conduct of the petitioner and allow him to participate in such proceed­ings which has not been done before discharging him, as such, the order of termination is not termination simplicitor, but by way of punishment. It is further contended that the order impugned has been passed by the authority, who is not competent to do so. 4. It is further contended that the order impugned has been passed by the authority, who is not competent to do so. 4. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that it was a case of termination simplicitor, as the misconduct referred to in the order impugned was only a motive and not a foundation. The reference of misconduct of the petitioner as contained in order dated 02.12.2010 is in relation to the allegations made against him. The petitioner was discharged from service only after thorough examination of the service record and after having found that he failed to complete his period of probation satisfactorily as his work and conduct during the period of probation remained poor and un-satisfactory. Further stand of the respondents is that the Vice Chancellor of the SKAUST issued the order impugned, which is not stigmatic, but discharge simplicitor, as the misconduct referred to in the order was only a motive and not a foundation. Besides that the order impugned has been issued strictly in conformity with Section 9 of Chapter -2 (Appointment of Officers and Teachers of the University) of SKAUST Statute read with Rule 21 (1) (b) and Rule 22(1) (b) of Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956, as such, the order impugned is perfectly legal, justified and also in consonance with the statutory mandate. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Communication dated 02.12.2010 was served upon the petitioner which contained various allegations of mis-conduct against him. His overall attitude towards the staff and students was un-becoming of a Librarian, which is clearly spelled out in the letter aforementioned. Despite, this communication, the petitioner was advised number of times to improve his conduct in order to maintain the academic atmosphere of the Library as well as in the Campus. The communication was followed by the order of discharge as the appointing authority did not consider the petitioner to be suitable for the post of Librarian as his work and conduct remained poor and unsatisfactory. 7. The issue before this Court for consideration is as to whether the allegation of misconduct has become the basis/foundation of his discharge or only reason for judging his overall performance as a probationer by the respondents. There is a clear cut distinction between the foundation and the motive/reason in relation to an order of termination. 7. The issue before this Court for consideration is as to whether the allegation of misconduct has become the basis/foundation of his discharge or only reason for judging his overall performance as a probationer by the respondents. There is a clear cut distinction between the foundation and the motive/reason in relation to an order of termination. The distinction may be thin at some time or over lapping. Where an inquiry into the misconduct is held without participation of an employee, the discharge of the said employee, on that count, would be based upon the allegations, which have been leveled. To say candidly, if the allegations of miscon­duct are subject to any enquiry held at the back of an employee, that would be treated as foundation for ordering discharge. Where the allegations are not subject to any enquiry, but is only reason for assessing the desirability of continuing an employee in service during the period of his probation or after completion of his probation, it can only be the motive to discharge or terminate the service of an employee. The instances of mis-conduct as enumerated in the communication dated 02.12.2010 admittedly have not been subject to any enquiry. It is subject to the satisfaction of the employer (competent authority) to allow the probationer to complete his tenure of probation and the same can not be made the subject-matter of any judicial scrutiny. It is the sole domain of the employer to assess the work and conduct of the employee (probationer) and not subject to any provision or compe­tence, but to overall conduct and disposition of an employee. 8. In the present case, it clearly emerges that the petitioner is discharged from service only after it has been found that his work and conduct was poor and un-satisfactory during the period from his date of joining till the date the order impugned came to be passed. The instances of misconduct as reflected in the communication dated 02.12.2010 have not been enquired into and, as such, no finding is recorded in this behalf. Respondents have taken a decision after examin­ing the overall conduct of the petitioner and the instances of misconduct were only the reason/motive in ordering the discharging from service. 9. The instances of misconduct as reflected in the communication dated 02.12.2010 have not been enquired into and, as such, no finding is recorded in this behalf. Respondents have taken a decision after examin­ing the overall conduct of the petitioner and the instances of misconduct were only the reason/motive in ordering the discharging from service. 9. I am fortified by decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in case reported as State of Haryana & another v. Satyender Singh Rathore, (2005) 7 SCC 518 , wherein it is held as under: "Whether an order of termination is simpliciter or punitive has ultimately to be decided having due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Many a times the distinction between the foundation and motive in relation to an order of termination is either thin or overlapping. It may be difficult either to categorise or classify strictly orders of termination simpliciter falling in one or the other category, based on misconduct as foundation for passing the order of termination simpliciter or on motive on the ground of unsuitability to continue in service. When the factual scenario of the present case is considered in the background of legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in its various decisions, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of termination." 10. The other ground taken by the petitioner that the order has not been issued by the competent authority, has been adequately replied by the respondents by stating that the order of termination has been passed by the Vice Chancellor who is competent under Section 26 (6) of the Statute. This order is subject to ratification. 11. Section 26(6) of the SKUAST ACT defines the powers and duties of the Vice Chancellor. For facility of reference, the same is reproduced as under: "26(6) The Vice Chancellor may take any action in any emergency which in his opinion calls for immediate actor. He shall in such case and as soon as maybe thereafter, report his action to the authority which will ordinarily have dealt with the matter. If the authority disagrees with the action of the Vice Chancellor, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision shall be final." 12. He shall in such case and as soon as maybe thereafter, report his action to the authority which will ordinarily have dealt with the matter. If the authority disagrees with the action of the Vice Chancellor, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision shall be final." 12. Admittedly, the import of the aforesaid provision is that, the Vice Chancel­lor has the power to take any action in an emergency, which in his opinion calls for immediate action and in such cases, he is required to report his action to the Board of Management of the University for rectification. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that so far as the instant action of the Vice Chancellor is concerned, the same will be referred to the Board of Management of the University for rectification as soon as possible. 13. Keeping in view all the facts narrated above, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed at admission stage itself along with the connected CMP(s), if any.