ORDER : BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the State of Gujarat, the employer and is directed against an order dated 1st February, 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge by which His Lordship allowed an application filed by an employee thereby setting aside the order of termination dated 12th August, 2004 and further declaring that the writ-petitioner should be deemed to have been continued in service after the expiry of the maximum period of probation prescribed in the Rules. 2. There is no dispute that the writ-petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer, which is a Class-II post on 26th October, 1999. According to Rule 10A of the Gujarat Civil Service [Classification & Recruitment (General)] Rules, 1967, the period of probation is one year and it can be further extended for a period of further two years. In the case before us, the termination order was passed on 12th August, 2004 without initiating any departmental proceeding for the alleged misconduct. 3. Being dissatisfied, the employer has come up with the present appeal. 4. The question before the learned Single Judge was whether, without initiating any departmental proceeding in accordance with the prescribed Rules, the termination of the petitioner was proper or not. 5. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that in the case before us, there being maximum period of probation of three years fixed, there was no scope of putting a further condition in the appointment letter of passing a formal order of appointment on long-term basis. 6. It appears that the learned Single Judge, in the order impugned, has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Maritime Board vs. C.M. Rathod in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 855 of 1998 in this context. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the order impugned as well as the Division Bench decision referred to above, we find that the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order of termination, inasmuch as, there being a maximum period of probation of three years fixed in the Rules, once it appears that the petitioner continued after that period, the deemed confirmation must be inferred. Once we hold that the petitioner got the benefit of deemed confirmation, there was also no scope of terminating his service on any ground of alleged misconduct without initiating the regular departmental proceeding prescribed in the case of a confirmed employee. 8. We, thus, find no substance in this appeal and consequently the same is dismissed. It is needless to mention that this order will not stand in the way of the employer in initiating regular departmental proceeding against the petitioner if it thinks it fit. We make it clear that we have, otherwise, not gone into the merit of the alleged misconduct. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 9. In view of the dismissal of the appeal itself, the connected Civil Application has become infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly.