JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur 1. The petitioner herein has concerted to, by instituting the instant writ petition before this Court reverse the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal') comprised in Annexure P-31, whereby the reliefs ventilated in O.A. No. 122-HP-2004 instituted before it stood declined to her. The petitioner herein in O.A. No. 122-HP-2004 instituted by her before the learned Tribunal had prayed for the relief of quashing of Annexure P-22 of 11.02.2003 whereby the respondents herein on considering the report of the DPC unveiling the appraisal of her work and performance besides it standing manifested in the special confidential report and both unraveling the factum of hers having not performing satisfactorily during the extended term of probation had hence construed her to be unsuitable for retention in service, prodding it to sequelly terminate her services. The petitioner herein had also prayed for quashing of Annexures P-25 and P-26 herein whereby the respondents rejected her representation/appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority against the termination of her services constituted in Annnexure P-22. Both reliefs stood un-afforded to the petitioner herein by the learned Tribunal. Necessarily then, the petitioner stands aggrieved and is constrained to institute the instant writ petition before this Court for quashing of the orders of the learned Tribunal comprised in Annexure P-31 besides, seeks reliefs of quashing of Annexures P-22, P-25 and P-26 herein. 2. The petitioner was under Annexure P-1, on the recommendations of the selection committee initially appointed as a probationer to the post of Scientist 'C' Group-IV (2) Entomology. The duration of her appointment to the post aforesaid on probationary basis was initially for a tenure of one year. However, it was spelt out in Annexure P-1 that the period of her appointment to the post aforesaid on probationary basis besides, the tenure of her appointment on probationary basis to the post aforesaid was both extendable as well as reducible by the competent authority. On the petitioner herein having completed her initial tenure of probation against the post to which she was appointed constrained the respondents to review her performance though hers having not performed satisfactorily yet they extended her tenure of probation against the post aforesaid by a further period of six months. On the petitioner herein having completed her initial tenure of probation against the post to which she was appointed constrained the respondents to review her performance though hers having not performed satisfactorily yet they extended her tenure of probation against the post aforesaid by a further period of six months. Even during the extended period of probation, the work of the petitioner herein was assessed both by the DPC as well as in the special confidential report and it was unfolded therein that she omitted to satisfactorily perform the callings of her avocation, despite opportunities to improve having been afforded to her , hence, the respondents were led to not extend the probationary period of appointment of the petitioner against the post aforesaid rather were compelled under Annexure P-22 to terminate her services. 3. Given the probationary nature of appointment of the petitioner to the post aforesaid by the respondents, enjoined upon the petitioner herein to satisfactorily perform the callings of her avocation for warranting the respondents to construe her to be suitable for retention in service. With an unfoldment in both Annexures R-1 and R-2 of the petitioner not performing as well as abysmally performing in a manner conforming to the highest standards of excellence expected from her given the specialization of the job to which she stood appointed, impelled the respondents to therein issue advisories upon her besides, afford opportunities to the petitioner herein to improve her performance. However, despite issuance of Annexures R-1 and R-2 by the respondents to the petitioner with an explicit enunciation therein of her performance being not upto the standards of excellence hence displaying her ineptitude to cope up with the specialized callings of the job/post to which she stood appointed, she yet unavailed of the opportunities rather ignored the advisories. As a corollary her performance during the period of 18 months encompassing both, the initial tenure of one year of her service as a probationary officer under the respondents against the post aforesaid and the extended period of probation of six months, was gauged by two renowned scientists to be inadequate as also not affording support to the mandated programme of the institute. The assessment of performance of the petitioner during the period of her probation, by two renowned scientists and their assessment of her performance during her probationary service under the respondents unveiling the factum of hers not possessing the requisite caliber to carry out the mandated programme of the respondents hence rendering her unsuitable for retention in service, was relied upon by the respondents to conclude qua her unsuitability for retention in service. The opinion of two renowned scientists on the abysmal working besides performance of the petitioner or hers being not responsive to the callings of the specializednature of her job during the period of her probationary service under the respondents, as well as the material comprised in the special confidential report both constituted firm, potential as well as tenably acceptable formidable material besides, credible material with the respondents to on their anvil justifiably terminate the services of the petitioner herein, under Annexure P-22. The discharge of the petitioner under Annexure P-22 for hers unsatisfactorily performing the assignments of her post to which she stood appointed by the respondents initially for a probationary term of one year which was subsequently extended by six months, is a discharge simplicitor or is not punitive in nature unless the petitioner herein was able to portray, that her termination by the respondent under Annexure P-22 for hers not satisfactorily completing the probationary period of her appointment against the post of Scientist 'C' Group -IV (2) Entomology, was as mandated in a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Pavanendra Narayan Verma versus Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences and another, (2002)1 SCC 520 , relevant paragraph 21 whereof stands extracted hereinafter, preceded by a full scale formal inquiry into the allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which culminated in a finding of guilt. Paragraph No.21 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “21. One of the judicially evolved test to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive is to see whether prior to the termination there was (a) full-scale formal enquiry (b) into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated in a finding of guilt. If all three factors are present the termination has been held to be punitive irrespective of the form of the termination order. If all three factors are present the termination has been held to be punitive irrespective of the form of the termination order. Conversely if any one of the three factors is missing, the termination has been upheld.”(p-528) However, no material exists on record or stands embedded in the germane record as available for discernment by this Court that any of the conditions aforesaid enshrined in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, relevant paragraph whereof extracted hereinabove gains either satiation or stands sustenance, for this Court being hence impelled to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, that the discharge of the petitioner herein under Annexure P-22 was not a discharge simplicitor nor a simplicitor order of termination rather was stigmatic besides punitive in nature, for further constraining this Court to conclude that Annexure P-22 is a mere guise, camouflaging the real or hidden motivating factors which preponderantly impinge upon facets other than her satisfactorily performing the callings of her avocation and theirs being rather the real guiding factors with the respondents to discharge the petitioner from service even without holding any inquiry qua any such disguised extraneous factors behind the petitioner's rating as a poor performer during the probationary period of her service under the respondents, rendering hence Annexure P-22 to be vitiated. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made an assay before this Court by attributing malafides to respondent No.3, the reporting officer of the petitioner herein comprised in the factum of his sexually harassing the petitioner as well as creating an uncongenial atmosphere in her work place for defacilitating her from performing upto the expected standards of excellence, to sway this Court to conclude that the assessment of the performance of the petitioner by respondent No.3 was biased, as such, was liable to be discountenanced by the competent authority while appraising her performance as a probationary officer. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that it was improper for the competent authority as unveiled by Annexure P-22 to take into consideration the assessment of her work by respondent No.3 as it comprised a biased opinion upon her work or performance as a probationary officer, especially given the allegations of malafides attributed to respondent No.3 which stand expressed in Annexure A-18 of 21.10.2002 existing on the record of OA No. 122-HP-2004, stands to be irrevered for the hereinafter reasons:- (a) the petitioner having omitted to, for 16 months allege malafides or attribute imputations of sexual harassment to respondent No.3. Even when in the preceding 16 months on completion whereof she under Annexure A-18 of 21.10.2002 took to attribute malafides to respondent No.3, she had been assessed by respondent No.3 to be not performing satisfactorily nor her performance conforming to the standards of excellence in consonance with the specialized nature of the job to which she stood appointed, yet even when she was not found performing satisfactorily by respondent No.3, she was granted extension in her tenure of probation for a period of six months by the respondents. She, however, within four months of her extended duration of her probation, authored Annexure A-18 attributing malafides to respondent No.3, warrants a sequelling inference of the belated endeavour on her part to under Annexure A-18 of 21.10.2002 attribute malafides to respondent No.3 being a contrived camouflage to hide her under performing the assignments relating to her job. Moreover, it appears to be also a well contrived assay on her part to, in the garb of Annexure A-18 oust and displace the effect of the assessment of her work by respondent No.3 while his being her reporting officer. (b) Two renowned scientists having closely appraised the performance of the petitioner herein during her probationary period and theirs having in their respective appraisals of her performance found her wanting both in caliber as well as in excellence, to carry out the mandated programme of the respondents subsumes the effect, if any, besides, overwhelms the purported biased assessment of the work of the petitioner by respondent No.3, it having been engendered by malafides arising from the latter purportedly sexually harassing the petitioner and whose purported misdemeanors found a belated expression in AnnexureA-18. Even otherwise, an appraisal by two renowned scientists of the performance of the petitioner herein as a probationary officer under the respondents against the post to which she stood appointed while constituting an opinion of experts cannot founder, especially when both are erudite specialists in the apposite field or subject, as such, competent to evaluate the performance of the petitioner herein during her probationary stint under the respondents besides, when no malafides stand attributed by the petitioner herein to two scientists of eminence, who evaluated her performance as a probationary officer for on their proof this Court being deterred to accept their evaluation of the performance of the petitioner as a probationary officer. In aftermath, this Court is prodded to not irrever their appraisal of the performance of the petitioner herein as a probationer under the respondents nor it gives any leverage to this Court to score off their assessment of the performance of the petitioner as a probationary officer under the respondents. Cumulatively, given the probationary nature of appointment of the petitioner herein to the post aforesaid by the respondents, she was liable to face the axe of termination for under performing or not satisfactorily performing, hence, unsuitable for retention, which parameter of hers performing unsatisfactorily, as such, unsuitable for retention when, as communicated by two scientists of eminence, stands accomplished, this Court is constrained to hold that Annexure P-22, is a discharge simplicitor or termination simplicitor of the services of the petitioner for hers having not satisfactorily completed her probationary period of service under the respondents and concomitantly with hers being unsuitable for retention rendered her retention to be not serving public interest, bereft of any traces of any element or stain of stigma whose existence therein may have alone rendered it, to be punitive which purported punitive nature of her termination when standing unpreceded by an inquiry may have engendered a conclusion from this Court, of it being construable to be liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. This Court has also considered the same issue in LPA No.134/2008 titled Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and others vs. Roshan Lal and laid down the same principle while relying on the judgment of Apex Court in Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat and another vs. Jayshree Chaman Lal Buddhbhatti, (2013) 16 SCC 59. 5. This Court has also considered the same issue in LPA No.134/2008 titled Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and others vs. Roshan Lal and laid down the same principle while relying on the judgment of Apex Court in Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat and another vs. Jayshree Chaman Lal Buddhbhatti, (2013) 16 SCC 59. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 20, 29 and 31 of the said judgment hereunder: “20. The question, therefore, comes for consideration, as stated earlier, as to whether this is a case of termination simpliciter of the services of a probationer on account of her unsuitability for the post that she was holding, or whether it is a termination of her services after holding an inquiry behind her back, and without giving her an opportunity to defend. 29. The propositions in this behalf, as to what constitutes a motive, and what constitutes a foundation for the action were once again crystallized in the judgment of this Court in Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2000 (5) SCC 152 , where in paragraph 28 and 29 of the judgment of this Court laid down the relevant propositions which are as follows:- “28. The important principles which are deducible on the concept of “motive” and “foundation”, concerning a probationer, are that a probationer has no right to hold the post and his services can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post in question. If for the determination of suitability of the probationer for the post in question or for his further retention in service or for confirmation, an inquiry is held and it is on the basis of that inquiry that a decision is taken to terminate his service, the order will not be punitive in nature. But, if there are allegations of misconduct and an inquiry is held to find out the truth of that misconduct and an order terminating the service is passed on the basis of that inquiry, the order would be punitive in nature as the inquiry was held not for assessing the general suitability of the employee for the post in question, but to find out the truth of allegations of misconduct against that employee. In this situation, the order would be founded on misconduct and it will not be a mere matter of ”motive”. 29. “Motive” is the moving power which impels action for a definite result, or to put it differently, “motive” is that which incites or stimulates a person to do an act. An order terminating the services of an employee is an act done by the employer. What is that factor which impelled the employer to take this action? If it was the factor of general unsuitability of the employee for the post held by him, the action would be upheld in law. If, however, there were allegations of serious misconduct against the employee and a preliminary inquiry is held behind his back to ascertain the truth of those allegations and a termination order is passed thereafter, the order, having regard to other circumstances, would be founded on the allegations of misconduct which were found to be true in the preliminary inquiry.” 31. Having gone through the salient judgments on the issue in hand, one thing which emerges very clearly is that, if it is a case of deciding the suitability of a probationer, and for that limited purpose any inquiry is conducted, the same cannot be faulted as such. However, if during the course of such an inquiry any allegations are made against the person concerned, which result into a stigma, he ought to be afforded the minimum protection which is contemplated under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India even though he may be a probationer. The protection is very limited viz. to inform the person concerned about the charges against him, and to give him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein has also proceeded to persuade this Court that the rejection of her appeal/ representation comprised in Annexure P-23 by the respondents by a non speaking and cryptic order warrants Annexure P-24 being set aside besides, hence the order of the learned Tribunal impugned before this Court being liable for interference. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein has also proceeded to persuade this Court that the rejection of her appeal/ representation comprised in Annexure P-23 by the respondents by a non speaking and cryptic order warrants Annexure P-24 being set aside besides, hence the order of the learned Tribunal impugned before this Court being liable for interference. However, given the marked recitals in Annexure P-18 of the petitioner not performing satisfactorily as upsurging from the apposite under scorement in the germane material placed before the respondents warranting hers being discharged as a probationer or her services being terminated hers being hence unsuitable for retention in service, rendered the communications in Annexure P-23 comprising the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein before the competent authority against Annexure P-22 wholly anchored upon hers rather performing satisfactorily besides the rating of her performance by respondent No.3 being discardable inasmuch as it sprouting from his rearing a bias against her which ground for smothering the effect of her rating by respondent No.3, for the reasons aforestated acquires no legal sinew, as a corollary any ad nauseam pronouncement thereupon qua their tenacity would have eroded besides, diluted the effect of Annexure P-22 with a vivid portrayal therein of it having been guided by no factor other than of two renowned scientists having on appraisal of her performance as a probationer under the respondents, having opined qua her unsuitability for retention. Hence, even if Annexure P-24 is non speaking and cryptic yet when it endorses the manifestations in Annexure P-22 anchored upon the relevant expert opinion of two renowned scientists, necessarily then its effect cannot face legal denudation and belittlement more so when the entire train of events preceding Annexure A-18 and subsequent to Annexure A-18 which even otherwise for the reasons aforesaid is a pure invention and after thought on the part of the petitioner herein, with explicit candour underline the factum of the petitioner herein not satisfactorily performing the callings of her avocation as a probationer, hence, she being interdicted to enjoin upon the competent authority to ad nauseam pronounce upon the validity of her expostulations comprised in Annexure P-23. Moreover, if the Appellate Authority had ad nauseam pronounced upon the validity of her expatiations in Annexure P-23, it would have tantamounted to an untenable concert to do so even without its being possessed of the necessary expertise and wherewithals besides, would have undermined the revereable undislodgeable opinion of two experts. 7. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned order is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of.