ORDER : 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 10.10.2017 issued by the respondent No. 2. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lineman in the respondent No. 2-BESCOM being declared successful in the trade test conducted by the Government of Karnataka, Department of Employment and Training. The petitioner was on probation. On the allegation of producing the fake marks cards at the time of securing the employment, the petitioner was issued with the termination order impugned. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no enquiry as contemplated under Regulation 11 of the K.E.B. Employees (Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (‘Regulations’ for short) has been conducted. 4. Learned counsel placing reliance on the Judgment of the Cognate Bench decision of this Court in W.P. No. 46307/2017 (Dated 19.06.2019) submitted that the termination order impugned deserves to be set aside. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was on probation at the time of passing the order of dismissal impugned herein. It is well settled principle that the purpose of placing a person on probation is to train him during the said period and to assess his suitability for the job concerned. The appointment order issued to the petitioner would indicate that any documents/information submitted by him if found to be wrong or false, his services would be terminated without issuing any notice and the petitioner has agreed to the said condition by giving his consent individually on the stamp paper of Rs. 200/-. This Court in W.P. No. 35573/2019 and connected matters (Dated 29.1.2020), in identical circumstances, collating the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court holding the field, has held that if the Management had provided the appointment on probation subject to verification of the facts given in the application form and on verification, if it is discovered that the facts given were wrong, the Management is at liberty to dispense with the services of the probationer as the question of any stigma and penal consequence at that stage would not arise. Any employment obtained on the basis of forged documents and discovered during the probation period, issuing the order of termination without holding the enquiry, cannot be held to be unjustifiable. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the primary argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no enquiry under Regulation 11 has been held has no consequence in the present set of facts. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition stands dismissed.