Article 311 of the Constitution confers protection on all civil servants, irrespective of whether they are permanently or temporarily employed.

The petitioner was an officiating clerk in a temporary vacancy in the office of the Divisional Forest Utilisation, Poona. Later on the post was made permanent and the petitioner was confirmed; but shortly afterwards the Divisional Forest Officer passed and order that the orders of confirmation should not be given effect to and the petitioner was informed that his services were no longer required. On appeal to the Government of Bombay the petitioner was informed by the Conservator that the order terminating his services was cancelled and that he was reinstated. Simultaneously, another letter was addressed suspending the petitioner pending departmental enquiry on the ground that he had been found indulging in objectionable activities, which conduct was in contravention of R. 30 of the Bombay Civil Services Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. The annexure to the charge sheet set out nine items all of which were answered by the petitioner. Later on, the Conservator informed the petitioner that all the charges against him were proved and called upon him to show cause against the proposed dismissal. Ultimately the petitioner was dismissed. On appeal the Government did not consider it necessary to revise the order passed by the Conservator. Thereafter the petitioner field an application under Art. 226 of the constitution for a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. This application had been filed more than seven months after the date on which the dismissal order was confirmed by the Government of Bombay. As however a Rule had been issued by the High Court and the High Court had heard the Counsel for the parties on merits their Lordships did not think it proper to dispose of the application merely on the ground of delay.

1. It was also urged by Mr. Bhabha that the petitioner as a temporary employee of the State cannot challenge the order of dismissal on the plea that it violated the constitutional protection granted to civil servants under Article 311 of the Constitution, it being open to the State Government or to an officer competent in that behalf to dismiss the petitioner from service having regard to the precarious nature of the tenure of his employment. According to Mr. Bhabha, Article 311 of the Constitution confers a protection only upon civil servants who are permanently employed in certain posts and a temporary servant cannot claim protection of Article 311 against dismissal or discharge from service. We are not impressed by that argument. Article 310 of the Constitution provides that every member of a civil service of the Union or of an all-India service or who holds any civil post under the Union holds office during the pleasure of the President and every person who is a member of a civil service of a State or who holds any civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State. By clause (2) of Article 311 it is provided that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. Articles 310 and 311 do not appear to make a distinction between civil servants who are permanently employed and those who are temporarily employed. The expression "no person" in Clause (1) of Article 311, in our Judgment, includes all civil servants, whether they have been appointed temporarily as members of a civil service or as permanent employees : and there is nothing implicit In the context of Article 311 or in "Its content which supports the plea that protection is conferred only upon persons who have been permanently appointed to a post in the civil service of the Union or of the State.

2. In the view we are taking we are supported by the observations made in a judgment of this Court, Shriniva