ORDER : Petitioner, by filing this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed to quash and set aside the letter bearing 5487 dated 22.12.2018 issued by the respondent No.4, whereby the contract of employment of the petitioner dated 04.07.2018 has been terminated and the petitioner has been relieved from the post of General Manager (Public Works), JUIDCO. 2. Petitioner was appointed on contract as the General Manager (Public Works) for a period of 5 (five) years with an initial probation period of 3 (three) months by JUIDCO Ltd. After joining, the petitioner also executed a contract of agreement and service bond on 04.07.2018. The work of the petitioner was assessed and thereafter vide letter bearing No.5487 dated 22.12.2018 the contract of employment of the petitioner was terminated. The petitioner was relieved from the post of General Manager (Public Works), JUIDCO with immediate effect. 3. Counsel for the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that the order is stigmatic and has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner should have been noticed before issuing the order impugned and he should have been provided an opportunity of hearing. He submits that by not providing an opportunity of hearing, the respondents have committed grave illegality and there is violation of principles of natural justice, which renders the impugned order a nullity in the eyes of law. He submits that the petitioner should be reinstated in service after setting aside the order impugned. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents (JUIDCO) submits that as the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory, thus, after evaluation, his services were terminated. He submits that the termination is simplicitor without any stigma and thus, the petitioner should not have any grievance. He submits that no stigma is attached to the impugned order and thus, there is no necessity of issuing show cause notice. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire records. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of 5 (five) years. He was on probation. His performance was evaluated and thereafter the appraising authority found the same to be less than satisfactory. Thus, the contract of employment was rescinded and he was removed. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of 5 (five) years. He was on probation. His performance was evaluated and thereafter the appraising authority found the same to be less than satisfactory. Thus, the contract of employment was rescinded and he was removed. The appointment letter dated 06.06.2018 has been brought on record, which specifies that the appointment is on contractual basis for a period of 5 (five) years with an initial probation period of 3 (three) months. It further stipulates that his performance will be assessed on completion of probation period and in case of satisfactory performance during the said period, his services will be continued for 5 (five) years. There is an employment agreement and service bond on record, which provides that the petitioner will be on probation period for 3 (three) months and if his performance is not satisfactory, his services will be terminated. Though the aforesaid employment agreement (Annexure 5 and 5/1) which are attached with memo of writ petition are not complete, but the petitioner in paragraph 2 has accepted the execution of the said contract of agreement and service bond with the aforesaid condition. The performance of the petitioner was evaluated and the same was found unsatisfactory and thus, the impugned order of termination was passed on 22.12.2018. After going through the impugned order, I find that it mentions that the terms of agreement and the recruitment notice provides for removal of service in case of unsatisfactory performance during probation period and since after appraising the performance of the petitioner during probation period, his performance was found less than satisfactory, he was simplicitor terminated. There is nothing more in the said impugned order. The impugned order is, thus, simplicitor letter of removal because the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory during the probation period. After perusing the letter, carefully, I find that there is no iota of stigma attached with the said letter. When there is no iota of stigma attached in the letter which terminates the service of an employee during the probation period in case of unsatisfactory performance, no prior notice is required. Reference may be put to (1985) 2 SCC 5 and (2002) 1 SCC 520 . The employer is well within its jurisdiction to terminate the service of an employee, simplicitor, if his performance during the probation period is found unsatisfactory. Reference may be put to (1985) 2 SCC 5 and (2002) 1 SCC 520 . The employer is well within its jurisdiction to terminate the service of an employee, simplicitor, if his performance during the probation period is found unsatisfactory. Citing the reason of removal, i.e., unsatisfactory performance during probation period does not attach any stigma. 6. Thus, in view of what has been discussed above, I find that there is no illegality in the impugned order of termination, which is simplicitor and non-stigmatic and thus, there being no substance, this writ application stands dismissed.