JUDGMENT

RAY, J. :— These appeals on Special Leave are against the judgment and orders passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing summarily the Writ Applications being Civil Writs Nos. 476 and 484 of 1981 filed by the appellants on the ground that the orders terminating services of the petitioners did not attach any stigma to the service career of any of the appellant-petitioners, but they are made in terms of employment.

2. The appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis as Surveyors on various dates between December 1976 to November 1977 through Employment Exchange. The terms of the order of appointment are quoted hereinbelow:-

"The following officials are hereby appointed as Surveyors in the grade of Rs. 140-6-170/8-210/10-300 up to 28-2-1977 or up to the date till the regular candidates are recommended by the Board, whichever is less, on ad hoc basis and are posted under the officers mentioned against their names.

Their services can be dispensed with any time without any notice or reason. These candidates will have to produce their concerned certificates to the concerned officers before the submission of the joining report

3. The Government of Punjab in order to regularise the services of all the ad hoc employees who had completed the minimum period of one years service on September, 1980 issued a Circular (Annexure B) to the effect that the services of the ad hoc employees shall be regularised on certain conditions mentioned therein. On being directed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 the petitioners submitted the requisite documents to the authorities concerned for regularisation of their services. The service of the petitioners was, however, terminated with effect from 31-1-81 by the order of the Chief Conservator of Soils, Punjab, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2.

4. The crucial question requires to be decided in the instant appeals is whether the impugned order of termination of services of the petitioners can be deemed to be an innocuous order of termination simpliciter according to the terms and conditions of the services without attaching any stigma to any of the petitioners or it is one in substance and in fact an order of termination by way of punishment based on misconduct and made in violation of the procedure prescribed by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. In other words when the order of termination is challenged as casting stigma on the service career, the Court can lift the veil in order to find out, the real basis of the impugned order even though on the face of it the order in question appears to be innocuous.

5. In order to decide this issue, it is necessary to consider firstly the terms and conditions of appointment. The appointments of the petitioners are purely temporary and they have been appointed on ad hoc basis "up to a certain date or up to date till the regular candidates are recommended by the Board, whichever is later." It was also provided therein that their services can be dispensed with any time without any notice or reason. The petitioners undoubtedly worked as Surveyors since the date of their appointment which in some cases (is) in December 1976 and in some cases on different dates between November, 1977 till 31st of January, 1981 when their services were terminated. In the order of termination it has been stated that "services of the employees are terminated with effect from 31-1-81 because these posts are no longer required". This order was made by the Chief Conservator of Soils, Punjab, respondent No. 2.

6. An affidavit has been sworn by Ashok Kumar, the petitioner No. 2, on 18th March 1981 along with an application for stay. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit it has been specifically stated :-

"(a) That the petitioner No. 1 was accused of a shortage of Rs. 7317.50, vide communication No. 1965 dated 12-11-1979 received from Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Budlada, District Bhatinda.

(b) That the deponent who is petitioner, No. 2 was also accused of shor