“3. After hearing separate counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, and also learned Government Pleader, we are unable to uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which in our view is thoroughly unrealistic because subsequent developments defeated the claim of the 1st respondent, is our feeling. On going through the judgment, what we notice is that the learned Single Judge has only found illegality in the procedure adopted in the enquiry and in the final termination order. However, on merits, the 1st respondent could not defend her action of abandoning the job on the following day after joining service while on probation. So much so, the only inference possible is irrespective of the consequences that follow, the 1 st respondent wanted to pursue her studies, and she, in fact, completed B.Ed and has probably become eligible to be appointed as a Teacher in the School. In our view, disciplinary proceedings or termination probably arises only when somebody in regular service is absent unauthorisedly, after being confirmed in service. If a person during probation abandoned the job or post without getting leave approved, it is a case of abandonment of job or at least failure to successfully complete probation, which entitles the Management to release such person from service and proceed to appoint another person, more so when the Peon's post is a single post which necessarily has to be filled up by a person willing to serve. However,
