JUDGMENT : GANESH RAM MEENA, J. 1. The present second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2001 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa (for short ‘the Appellate Court’) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 07/2000, whereby the learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants/defendants affirmed the judgment dated 24.02.2000 and decree dated 29.03.2000 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bandikui (Dausa) [for short ‘the trial court’] in Civil Case No. 55/91 (19/95). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit before the trial court under Order 33 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in the year 1991, seeking declaration, permanent injunction, and consequential relief. It was the case of the respondent/plaintiff that he was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department under the Scheduled Caste quota by order dated 05.06.1990 in Jaipur District. He was assigned Belt No. 759 and placed on probation for two years with a monthly salary of Rs. 1305/-. The plaintiff-respondent alleged that his services were abruptly terminated during the probation period vide order dated 22.09.1990, by the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City, on the ground of unsatisfactory performance during the probation period. The respondent/plaintiff claimed in the suit that the discharge order was illegal, arbitrary, and passed without affording any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice because there is nothing on the record that his services were not satisfactory during the probation period The appellants/defendants in their written statement filed through the Officer-in-Charge on 16.03.1992, opposed the suit. It was specifically contended that the respondent/plaintiff had suppressed the material information at the time of his appointment, namely, that he was facing trial in a criminal case under Sections 147 , 148, and 379 IPC before the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui. This fact was deliberately omitted by the respondent/plaintiff in Columns No. 8 and 9 of the application form, which required disclosure of any involvement in civil or criminal proceedings. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court:- 4. During the course of the trial, evidence was led by both parties and arguments were heard. The trial court decided issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the appellants/defendants. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court:- 4. During the course of the trial, evidence was led by both parties and arguments were heard. The trial court decided issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the appellants/defendants. The trial court held that the order of discharge dated 22.09.1990 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the respondent/plaintiff and thereby suffers from illegality on the grounds of breach of principles of natural justice. The trial court declared the order of discharge as a nullity and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, directing reinstatement with continuity of service, arrears of full back wages, allowances, and entitlement to seniority and promotion. 5. The appellants/ defendants aggrieved with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court preferred first appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 25.01.2001 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants/ defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and so also the judgment of the Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the appellants/defendants was dismissed, the appellants/ defendants have preferred the present second appeal. 7. While admitting this second appeal vide order dated 01.10.2007, the Court framed the following substantial question of law, involved in this second appeal:- “Whether the plaintiff/ respondent concealed the material facts about pendency of criminal cases against him while filling-up his form for getting appointment on the post of Constable and whether his removal during probation period was justified, or not?” 8. Counsel appearing for the appellants/ defendants submitted that the courts below have failed to appreciate that the services of the plaintiff, being a probationer, could have been terminated without assigning any reason and without the necessity of a departmental enquiry or show cause notice, particularly when the discharge was simpliciter on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. The counsel further submitted that the concealment of material facts by the plaintiff regarding the pending criminal case is a serious matter affecting the integrity and suitability of a person for appointment in the disciplined force like police. The counsel contended that such suppression amounted to fraud and misrepresentation, rendering the appointment void ab initio. The counsel further submitted that the concealment of material facts by the plaintiff regarding the pending criminal case is a serious matter affecting the integrity and suitability of a person for appointment in the disciplined force like police. The counsel contended that such suppression amounted to fraud and misrepresentation, rendering the appointment void ab initio. On this ground alone, the respondent/plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. Counsel further contended that both the courts below erred in converting a case of discharge during probation into a punitive termination, without adequate legal basis. Furthermore, the counsel submitted that the findings of both the courts below are perverse and contrary to settled legal principles governing probationary employment and suppression of material facts. In light of the above submissions, counsel for the appellants /defendants prays that the present second appeal be allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by boththe courts below be quashed and set aside, and the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff be dismissed with costs throughout. 9. Ms. Sarita Choudhary for Ms. Karishma Soni, counsel appearing for the respondent/ plaintiff on the other hand submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well as the Appellate Court. She also submitted that though in the order of removal from service, the appellants/ defendants have mentioned the reason that “the services of the plaintiff were not satisfactory during the probation period” but this was not the actual reason for removal of respondent/plaintiff from service. The respondent/plaintiff in his plaint has specifically averred that his services were quite satisfactory to the department authorities but the appellants/ defendants in their impugned order of removal from service stated that the services of the plaintiff/ respondent were not satisfactory during probation period, which is wholly illegal and contrary to record. The appellants /defendants in their written statement have nowhere alleged that the services of the respondent/plaintiff were not satisfactory during the probation period. It has only been stated in the written statement that the plaintiff/ respondent has concealed material fact while submitting the application form as regards the pendency of a criminal case against him which shows that his conduct was not upto the mark to retain him in service, meaning-thereby, the reason for removal of service is not as has been stated in the impugned removal order. Counsel has further submitted that in the appointment order itself the appellants/ defendants have stated that the appointment of a candidate can be cancelled if during verification it is found that a candidate has concealed the material facts. In such circumstances before cancelling any appointment it is mandatory on the department authorities to follow the principles of natural justice i.e. they could only cancel the appointment of a candidate only after serving him a notice and allowing him an opportunity to submit his/ her explanation. In the present case, since the basic principle of natural justice was not followed before removal of service of the respondent/plaintiff. The order of removal of service of respondent/plaintiff is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and therefore, the trial court has rightly quashed and set aside the said order vide its judgment and decree and the Appellate Court has further upheld the same. She further submitted that the substantial question of law framed is liable to be decided in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances and the pleadings of the case. 10. During the pendency of this second appeal, the appellants/ defendants have submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with section 151 CPC to place on record certain additional documents. 11. Taking into consideration the issue involved in this second appeal and after going through the documents attached with the application, the Court feels that the said documents are necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties and therefore, the application filed by the appellants/defendants under Order 41 Rule 27 read with section 151 CPC is allowed and the documents attached with the application are taken on record. 12. Considered the submissions made at Bar and also perused the record of the case. 13. In view of the substantial question of law framed while admitting this second appeal on 01.10.2007, the Court is to examine the basic pleadings of the parties. 14. The respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction so as to set aside the order of removal from service dated 22.09.1990. The language of the order of removal from service of the respondent/plaintiff is quoted as under:- 15. The respondent/ plaintiff in para No.3 of the plaint has made the averments as under:- 16. 14. The respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction so as to set aside the order of removal from service dated 22.09.1990. The language of the order of removal from service of the respondent/plaintiff is quoted as under:- 15. The respondent/ plaintiff in para No.3 of the plaint has made the averments as under:- 16. The appellants/ defendants have submitted the written statement and denied the averments made in para No.3 of the plaint as under:- 17. Though the respondent/ plaintiff in his plaint has specifically stated that he has been removed from the service with false allegations of ‘unsatisfactory service’ during the probation period but the services of the respondent/ plaintiff as a Constable after his appointment were quite satisfactory and the appellant – department has removed the respondent/plaintiff from service in view of the allegation of concealment of fact while submitting the application form for recruitment hiding the fact of pendency of a criminal case. 18. The appellants/ defendants- department in their written statement have nowhere stated that the services of the respondent /plaintiff were not satisfactory during the probation period. It has been averred by the appellants/ defendants in their written statement that the respondent/ plaintiff has concealed the fact of pendency of criminal case by submitting the application form and therefore, during the probation period he can be removed from the service without issuing notice and holding inquiry. 19. Counsel for the appellants in support of his arguments that a probationer can be removed from the service on account of unsatisfactory service during probation without even issuing any show-cause notice to him or holding any inquiry, has referred the following judgments:- A. Managing Director, Energetic Lighting (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Shops and Commercial Establishments & Anr., reported in 2013(7) SLR 603 (Raj.); B. Kunwar Arun Kumar v. U.P. Hill Electronics Corporation Ltd. & Ors., reported in 1997(1) SLR 136 ; C. Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 169 ; and D. Krishnadevaraya Education Trust & Anr. v. L.A. Balakrishna, reported in AIR 2001 SC 625 . 20. v. L.A. Balakrishna, reported in AIR 2001 SC 625 . 20. Counsel appearing for the respondent/ plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India & Anr., reported in 1984 (1) SLR 426 , in support of her submission that issuance of show cause notice was mandatory before removal from service. 21. The judgments cited by the counsel appearing for the appellants/ defendants are in regard to the submission that a probationer can be removed from the service if his services during probation do not find to be satisfactory and such removal is neither stigmatic nor punitive. In the present case on the basis of the pleadings, this Court finds that in the order of removal of respondent/ plaintiff from service though the appellant- Department has mentioned that the services of the respondent/ plaintiff are being put to an end for the reason that his services during the probation period were not satisfactory. However, in the written statement they have not pleaded a single word that the services of the respondent / plaintiff during the probation period were not satisfactory but they have alleged that the respondent/ plaintiff has concealed the material fact while submitting the application form for recruitment as regards the pendency of a criminal case against him. When the suit proceedings were going on and the matter was fixed before the trial court on 10.07.1998, no-one appeared on behalf of the appellants/ defendants and the Court ordered for ex-parte proceedings against the appellants/ defendants. No evidence was adduced from the defendants’ side of any manner whether the services of the respondent/ plaintiff were unsatisfactory during probation period or he has been removed from the service for some other reason. Since in the order of removal the reason for removal from the service is mentioned as “unsatisfactory service during probation period”. The respondent/ plaintiff in his plaint has specifically averred that the services of the respondent /plaintiff were quite satisfactory during the probation period and he has been removed from the service in view of an allegation of concealment of fact of a criminal case while submitting the application form for recruitment and in such circumstances since the allegation of concealment was not justified, the appellants/ defendants were under an obligation to issue a show-cause notice and adhere to the principle of natural justice. The judgment cited by the counsel appearing for the respondent /plaintiff of Anoop Jaiswal (supra) i.e. in relation to the misconduct wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is attracted, has discharged from the service, is in violation of the same. 22. It is a well settled law that the services of an employee who is under probation can be put to end on the count that his services are not satisfactory during probation period without holding any inquiry or issuing any notice to the said employee. The object behind removing such person for unsatisfactory service during probation period is that the issue of unsatisfactory service is only the satisfaction and observation of the employer / authority. Whether the services are satisfactory or unsatisfactory, that can only be made by the employer/ authorities, which cannot be adjudicated on the basis of any kind of explanation of an employee. 23. In the present case as per the pleadings of the appellants/ defendants in the written statement, the respondent /plaintiff has been removed from the service on account of allegation of concealment of fact of pendency of a criminal case, though in the order of removal they have simply said that the services of the plaintiff were not satisfactory during the probation period. Since the actual reason for removal of the respondent/ plaintiff from service is concerned i.e. the allegation of concealment of fact of pendency of a criminal case while submitting the application form for recruitment. The order of removal which discloses the reason of removal as unsatisfactory service, may not be a punitive or stigmatic order but the pleadings very much clearly speak that the plaintiff’s removal from service is because of the allegation of concealment of fact of pendency of a criminal case and in such circumstances since there is an allegation against the respondent/ plaintiff, the removal becomes stigmatic. As regards the allegation of concealment of fact of pendency of criminal case is concerned, though the respondent /plaintiff has stated that there is no such concealment in view of the totality of the facts of the case but even if the appellant- department has received any kind of information which could lead to say that there was any kind of concealment on the part of plaintiff, the appellants / defendants were under an obligation to issue a show cause notice and allow him an opportunity to defend the allegations. On the allegation of concealment of pendency of criminal case the appellants/ defendants were supposed to adhere to the principle of natural justice in view of provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. As regards any kind of allegation in regard to adverse report, the employer is required to abide by the principle of natural justice even if the employee is under probation. It is to be noted that Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India does not make any distinction in between a regular employee or an employee who is on probation for the purpose of dismissal / removal from service on the basis of certain allegations against an employee. 24. Since the actual reason for plaintiff’s removal from the service is concerned, the allegation against him is in regard to concealment of fact while submitting the application form for recruitment as regards the pendency of a criminal case and therefore, in such a situation the appellants/ defendants ought to have adhered to the principle of natural justice. 25. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the view that while removing a person from service on account of allegation of concealment of material fact regarding pendency of a criminal case against him while submitting the application form for getting the appointment, the employer / authority should have adhered to the principle of natural justice even though the employee is under probation. Hence, this Court can safely upheld the view of both the courts below that plaintiff’s removal from service during probation period without adhering to the principle of natural justice is illegal and unjustified. 26. Accordingly, the second appeal filed by the appellants/defendants is dismissed. 27. Cost made easy. 28. In view of the judgment passed in the main appeal, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. 29. 26. Accordingly, the second appeal filed by the appellants/defendants is dismissed. 27. Cost made easy. 28. In view of the judgment passed in the main appeal, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. 29. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned court forthwith.