JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us. 2. On December 30, 2014, he was appointed as a Peon in the City Civil Court on probation for two years. On July 14, 2016, during his probation period, he was discharged holding, inter alia, that he was not suitable to hold the post for which he was appointed. No stigma was imputed against him. 3. Under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, the appointing authority can discharge a probationer on account of his unsuitability for the service of the post. 4. The writ petitioner could not establish that there was any mala fide or that the order was passed as a punitive measure. 5. The Hon'ble Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any merit in the writ appeal. 6. Therefore, the writ appeal stands dismissed. 7. We are now informed by Mr.Satish, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, that the salaries for some period, for which the appellant had discharged his duties, was not released. 8. Liberty is granted to the appellant to make a representation to the Registrar of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. If such a representation is made, the Registrar shall consider release of the salary, if not already paid, in accordance with law. 9. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. There will be no order as to costs.