Probationary discharge and deemed confirmation depend on express confirmation and absence of punitive misconduct findings.

A probationer is not automatically confirmed merely because the initial probation period expires or the rules allow a maximum probation term; absent an express confirmation order, continued service does not create deemed confirmation. The commentary also explains that discharge based on unsatisfactory performance and overall unsuitability during probation remains termination simpliciter where it is not founded on a formal disciplinary enquiry or a finding of misconduct. On that reasoning, the service termination was upheld as a valid probationary discharge and was not treated as punitive or violative of natural justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the applicant was deemed to have been confirmed on completion of the initial period of probation because no extension order was issued in time; (ii) whether the discharge from service was punitive and therefore liable to be set aside.

Issue (i): whether the applicant was deemed to have been confirmed on completion of the initial period of probation because no extension order was issued in time.

Analysis: The period of probation under the governing rules was one year, extendable by one year at a time up to an aggregate of three years. The availability of a maximum probation period did not by itself create automatic or deemed confirmation. The rule permitting discharge during probation and the absence of any express confirmation order negatived the plea that continuance in service after the first year resulted in deemed confirmation. Administrative instructions regarding timely consideration of confirmation did not confer an enforceable right contrary to the rules.

Conclusion: The applicant was not deemed confirmed and remained on probation.

Issue (ii): whether the discharge from service was punitive and therefore liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The discharge was founded on overall unsatisfactory performance and unsuitability for the post, including material showing transgression of jurisdiction, but there was no full-scale formal enquiry culminating in a finding of guilt. The material was used to assess suitability during probation and did not convert the order into one of punishment. In the absence of moral turpitude, a stigmatic element, or a disciplinary enquiry of the kind that attracts constitutional protection, the order was treated as termination simpliciter.

Conclusion: The discharge was not punitive and did not violate the requirements of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the probation-related extension and the discharge order failed, and the applicant's service termination was upheld as a valid probationary discharge.

Ratio Decidendi: A probationer is not automatically confirmed merely because the maximum period of probation is provided in the rules and expiry of the initial period does not by itself confer a right to confirmation absent an express confirmation order; a discharge based on unsuitability and unsatisfactory performance during probation is termination simpliciter unless preceded by a formal enquiry into misconduct culminating in a finding of guilt.

---