ORDER Pramath Patnaik, J.: 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for setting aside the administrative order no. 40/2004 dated 06.07.2004, passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated with effect from the date of his absence i.e. 28.06.2003, by challenging the legality and propriety of the said order on the ground that the impugned order of termination has been passed without initiating any departmental proceeding and without adhering to the principles of natural justice and petitioner has further prayed for reinstatement on the post of peon and for confirmation of his services as he has already worked for about three years prior to termination of his services. 2. The factual exposition, as has been delineated in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed in the post of peon, on compassionate ground on account of death of his father, late Madan Mohan Sharma, on temporary basis, vide District Judge Order No. 27 dated 06.04.2000. Pursuant thereto the petitioner joined on 26.04.2000 vide Annexure 1 to the writ application. The petitioner thereafter continuously worked for three years and accordingly three increments were given, as revealed from the Service Book of the petitioner vide Annexure 2 to the writ application. It has been further averred that even after completion of three years of continuous service, the services of the petitioner was not confirmed by the respondents although services of other similarly placed employees have been confirmed within a period of two years. It has been stated that the petitioner fell ill on 28.06.2003 and was treated by Dr. Surendra Prasad, Ex. Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer, who diagnosed his illness as Sytic Lawerliazy Sperdram and advised him to take bed rest till 08.08.2003 as evident from the medical certificate, Annexure 3 to the writ application. Again the petitioner fell ill and got himself treated by the same doctor and he was advised to take complete bed rest from 08.08.2003 to 19.03.2004 as evident from Medical Certificate vide Annexure 4 to the writ application. Again the petitioner fell ill and got himself treated by the same doctor and he was advised to take complete bed rest from 08.08.2003 to 19.03.2004 as evident from Medical Certificate vide Annexure 4 to the writ application. It has been further averred that after recovery from illness, the petitioner gave his joining report and prayed for grant of extraordinary leave but he was informed by the Office of Judge-in-Chare (Admn.) and Nazir, Civil Court Hazaribagh that report has been made against the petitioner and same has been forwarded to the District & Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh. It has further been stated that when the copy of the report was demanded by the petitioner, the same was refused and it was stated that the order will be communicated to him. Thereafter, after waiting for some time, the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the order on 03.12.2005, which was supplied on the same date whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated w.e.f 28.06.2003. It has been stated that finally vide order dated 06.07.2004 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh the services of the petitioner was terminated, vide Annexure 5 to the writ application. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been stated at paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit that the notice was issued to the petitioner, who appeared on 22.06.2003 before the Registrar, Civil Court, Hazaribagh with an application to join his duties. It has been submitted that the petitioner was directed to produce the medical certificate but he did not file any such certificate and on 20.08.2003 another application was received in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh stating therein that the petitioner is sick and is under treatment in Jehanabad praying for commuted leave from 17.07.2003 to 15.09.2003. It has been submitted in the counter affidavit that the application was placed before the Registrar, Civil Court on 22.08.2003 and medical report was called for but the petitioner did not produce any medical report. It is further stated that petitioner further appeared in the Office of District & Sessions Judge and submitted an application for permission to join his duties with a prayer to grant him earned leave from 28.06.2003 to 19.03.2004. 4. It is further stated that petitioner further appeared in the Office of District & Sessions Judge and submitted an application for permission to join his duties with a prayer to grant him earned leave from 28.06.2003 to 19.03.2004. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that services of the petitioner was not confirmed and was on purely temporary basis and hence, no earned leave was admissible to him under the Service Code and as the petitioner was absent for more than eight months from duty without any information and grounds for absence was also not satisfactory, therefore, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide Order No. 40/2004 dated 06.07.2004 from the date of his absence i.e. 28.06.2003. 5. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that petitioner was absent on previous occasions also without intimation but taking a sympathetic and lenient view he was granted extraordinary leaves but when it became a habit of the petitioner to remain in unauthorized absence, without giving any notice, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh has rightly terminated services of the petitioner vide order dated 06.07.2004, vide Annexure 5 to the writ application and the said termination is a termination simpliciter. Therefore, it has been stated that the writ application is not legally sustainable. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned order at Annexure 5 is a stigmatic and punitive order and is violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & Others Vs. Palak Modi and Another as reported in (2013) 3 SCC 607 : 2013 (1) JLJR (SC) 476 specially upon paragraphs 25, 26, 36 and 37 thereof. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre For Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Others as reported in (1999) 3 SCC 60 , specially on paragraphs 25, 27, 38 and 46. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre For Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Others as reported in (1999) 3 SCC 60 , specially on paragraphs 25, 27, 38 and 46. By referring to the aforesaid judgments; State Bank of India (supra) and Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order of termination under Annexure 5 is a stigmatic order. 8. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on bare perusal of the impugned order of termination read with the assertion made in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, it indubitably suggests that stigma was attached with the conduct of the petitioner, therefore, minimum requirement of audi alteram partem ought to have been followed before dispensing with the services of the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further vehemently argues even though the impugned order at Annexure 5 appears to be innocuous but the intention of the disciplinary authority ought to be gathered by lifting the veil so as to know that in garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished the employee/ petitioner for an act of misconduct. Therefore, this being a punitive order is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents after placing the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents has relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma Vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences & Another as reported in (2002) 1 SCC 520 : 2002 (1) PLJR (SC) 204, specially on paragraphs 29, 31, 32, 34 and 35 thereof. Learned counsel has further relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., as reported in (2011) 4 SCC 447 : 2011 (2) JLJR (SC) 66, specially on paragraphs 9, 10 and 12 thereof. 11. On conspectus of facts coupled with rivalised submissions relating to the moot question of determination as to whether the impugned order of punishment Annexure 5 is termination simpliciter or a stigmatic termination or punitive order, let me dwell upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, both by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. On careful reading to the aforesaid decisions and by applying the same to the present fact situation, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of termination of the petitioner vide Annexure 5 is a termination simpliciter and no illegality has been committed by the respondents in not issuing show cause or opportunity of hearing, prior to termination since the impugned order has been passed during the period of probation. 12. After giving my anxious consideration, factual as well as legal aspect, I am of the considered opinion that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner and so the impugned order issued under Memo No. 40/2004 dated 06.07.2004, vide Annexure 5 to the writ application, does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed being devoid of any merit.