JUDGMENT : 1. Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 02.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed. 2. Respondent had filed writ petition challenging the order dated 18.04.2015, whereby, his services were terminated. Case of the respondent/petitioner, in brief, was that he was selected to the post of ASI/EXE in CISF and was issued provisional offer of an appointment vide letter dated 07.08.2014. Respondent was subsequently appointed in CISF with effect from 30.08.2014 vide order dated 16.10.2014. Respondent was on probation for a period of two years. Respondent applied for two days earned leave, i.e., 18.10.2014 and 19.10.2014. The said leave was granted to the respondent. However, respondent could not join back his duty on account of his illness, and thereafter, respondent was involved in a false criminal case and was arrested and was released on bail vide order dated 04.12.2014. A notice was issued to the respondent by the appellants on 10.11.2014 seeking his reply as to why he had overstayed leave. Respondent intimated to the appellants that on account of his illness as well as his arrest in the criminal case, he could not join back his duty. However, services of the respondent had been terminated vide impugned order dated 18.04.2015 (Annexure-6 attached with the writ petition). 3. In reply to the writ petition filed by the respondent, it was averred by the appellants that respondent had been appointed in CISF with effect from 30.08.2014 vide order dated 16.10.2014. Respondent had applied for two days leave, i.e., 18.10.2014 and 19.10.2014, but had thereafter overstayed leave. An application dated 22.10.2014 was submitted by the respondent alongwith medical certificate dated 22.10.2014 and the same was received by post by the appellants on 07.11.2014. Since, the appellant had overstayed leave without information, his services were terminated vide impugned order dated 18.04.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in ordering the reinstatement of the respondent. Respondent within a very short spell of his service had overstayed leave. Thereafter, respondent got involved in a criminal case involving fraud, i.e., Railway Recruitment Scam. The respondent, who was on probation, could not be allowed to continue in service as he was unable to prove to be a good official. 5. Respondent within a very short spell of his service had overstayed leave. Thereafter, respondent got involved in a criminal case involving fraud, i.e., Railway Recruitment Scam. The respondent, who was on probation, could not be allowed to continue in service as he was unable to prove to be a good official. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly allowed the writ petition and reinstating the respondent in service. 6. Admittedly, respondent was granted leave for two days, i.e., 18.10.2014 and 19.10.2014. Thereafter, respondent failed to report for duty on 20.10.2014. As per the case of the respondent, the application dated 22.10.2014 alongwith medical certificate was received on 07.11.2014 by post. The medical certificate attached with the application has been placed on record as Annexure-R4 with the reply to writ petition filed by the appellants. A perusal of the medical certificate reveals that the same was issued on 22.10.2014 and the respondent was advised rest for fifteen days. A perusal of the said certificate further reveals that reference has been made to some slip issued on 21.10.2014. Thus, respondent had failed to attach any medical certificate/record to establish that he was unwell on 20.10.2014 and due to this reason, he could not report on duty after exhausting his leave. Learned Single Judge has gone on the presumption that the respondent was unwell prior to the date of issuance of the certificate dated 22.10.2014. However, we are unable to raise the said presumption after carefully examining the medical certificate Annexure-R4 (attached with reply to writ petition). 7. Admittedly, respondent also got involved in a criminal case and was arrested on 08.11.2014. The criminal case registered against the respondent was under Sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since, the respondent who was only a probationer and had overstayed leave without informing the appellants, the natural consequence for the appellants was to draw the inference that the respondent was unable to prove to be a good official and his services were liable to be terminated within the probation period. 8. Since, the respondent who was only a probationer and had overstayed leave without informing the appellants, the natural consequence for the appellants was to draw the inference that the respondent was unable to prove to be a good official and his services were liable to be terminated within the probation period. 8. Termination order dated 18.04.2015 (Annexure-6 attached with the writ petition) reads as under:- "Reference this office show cause notice No. E-7035/CISF/RTC(A)/6th (B)/ASI/Exe/Termi/Trg/15-701 dated 30-01-2015 and reply dated Nil submitted by CISF No. 140405633 (Roll No. 2405025440) ASI/EXE (U/T) Vishram Meena against show cause notice. 02. WHEREAS CISF No. 140405633 (Roll No. 2405025440) ASI/EXE (U/T) Vishram Meena, S/o. Shri Rameshwar Lal Meena of 6th Batch has been provisionally selected for the post of ASI/Exe in CISF through SSC examination-2012 and accordingly issued with provisional Offer of Appointment vide CISF RTC Arakkonam letter No. E-14099/RTC (A)/CISF/ASI/Exe (6th Batch)/Trg/14/4765 dated 07-08-2014. He has been appointed in CISF as ASI/Exe w.e.f. 30.08.2014 vide CISF RTC Arakkonam Service Order Part-I No. 50/2014 dated 16-10-2014. He has been on probation for a period of 02 years from the date of his appointment and still continues to be so. 03. WHEREAS, rule 25(2) of CISF Rules, 2001 provides that if during the period of probation, the appointing authority is of the opinion that a member of the Force is not fit for permanent appointment, the appointing authority may discharge him (or terminate the services) from the Force after issue of notice of one month. 04. WHEREAS CISF No. 140405633 (Roll No. 2405025440) ASI/EXE (UT) Vishram Meena, was granted 02 days Earned leave w.e.f. 18.10.2014 to 19.10.2014 and he was required to report back at RTC Arakkonam on 20.10.2014 (FN) to resume basic training of ASI/Exe but he has not reported back for the basic training and is overstaying leave. Meanwhile, it has also been intimated by SHO, Mahesh Nagar Police Station, Jaipur (West) that he was arrested and detained into custody by the Police on 08.11.2014 after being found involved in crime/fraud case under Section 420 and 120-B IPC vide Criminal case No. 452/2014 dated 08.11.2014. 05. WHEREAS, in according with the provisions of rule 25(2) of CISF Rules, 2001, the undersigned, being the appointing authority of above ASI/Exe (UT), is of the opinion that the above probationer is not fit for permanent appointment in CISF by virtue of his performance during the probation period. 05. WHEREAS, in according with the provisions of rule 25(2) of CISF Rules, 2001, the undersigned, being the appointing authority of above ASI/Exe (UT), is of the opinion that the above probationer is not fit for permanent appointment in CISF by virtue of his performance during the probation period. Therefore, CISF No. 140405633 (Roll No. 2405025440) ASI/EXE (UT) Vishram Meena was issued with a termination notice vide letter No. E-37035/CISF/RTC(A)/6th(B)/ASI/Exe/Termi/Trg/15-701 dated 30-01-2015 proposing to terminate his services and giving opportunity to represent in writing within one month against the proposal of termination. 06. WHEREAS, No. 140405633 (Roll No. 2405025440) ASI/EXE (UT) Vishram Meena, has submitted a written representation dated NIL sent by post to the Sr. Commandant, CISF RTC Arakkonam which was received on 31.03.2015 terming the notice of termination illegal and the proposal of termination not tenable. His representation has been considered and found to be not satisfactory. 07. NOW, THEREFORE, in pursuance of the Provision contained in Rule 25 of CISF Rules, 2001, I the undersigned hereby terminate forthwith the services of CISF No. 140405633 (Roll No. 2405025440) ASI/EXE (U/T) Vishram Meena, S/o. Shri Rameshwar Lal Meena of 6th Batch of CISF RTC Arakkonam. 08. CISF No. 140405633 (Roll No. 2405025440) ASI/EXE (U/T) Vishram Meena, S/o. Shri Rameshwar Lal Meena of 6th Batch of CISF RTC Arakkonam shall acknowledge receipt of this order." 9. The Competent Authority while passing the termination order had taken into consideration all the relevant facts. 10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Single Judge fell in error while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the termination order. Rather, we are of the opinion that the termination order-in-question was liable to be upheld as the respondent, a probationer, who was having very little service to his credit had overstayed leave. 11. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 02.11.2018 is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed.