A temporary employee is entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution against dismissal from service, and a confidential enquiry conducted against such an employee does not satisfy the Constitutional safeguards.

( 1 ) THIS is a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why they should not forbear from giving effect to the order of dismissal dated 9-1-53, complained of in the petition, and/or why they should not rescind or withdraw the said order and/or why such other or further order or orders should not be made as to the Court seems fit and proper.

( 2 ) THE facts of this case are shortly as follows: On 29-4-1950, the petitioner was appointed an Additional Rehabilitation Officer under the Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Bengal, with effect from the date he joined his duty. The appointment letter which is annexure 'a' to the petition, provides as follows: "the appointment is purely on temporary basis and liable to be terminated without any notice. "

( 3 ) THE petitioner was posted at Kalna in the district of Burdwan, and one of his duties was to disburse loans to refugees. It is alleged that in course of an inspection of the loan account it was discovered that there were instances of gross negligence and corruption. The Deputy Financial Adviser Refugee Rehabilitation Department Who made the discovery, drew up an interim report in which he made serious charges against the petitioner e. g. that he had granted loans against lands which did not exist or were under water, that a number of spurious Amalnamas had been used and the unfortunate refugees misled into parting with money without securing any benefits whatsoever. (Annexure 'b' to the petition ). He recommended that the petitioner should be suspended forthwith and proceedings should be drawn up against him.

( 4 ) THE matter was thereupon referred to the District Magistrate, Burdwan (O. P. No. 2) and also to the Anti-corruption Department. So far as the latter department is concerned, an investigation was made but it ended in a recommendation that Departmental action may be taken up.

( 5 ) THE District Magistrate, Burdwan frame charges against the petitioner and wrote to him a letter dated the 8th August, 1951 as follows:"charges of proceedings against Sri Balai Chan (sic) Basak, Additional Rehabilitation Officer, Kaln (sic) Sub Divisional Relief Office. SPECIFIC CHARGES Whereas it appears from the inspection note Of loan accounts of Kalna Sub Divisional Re-lief Office for the year 1949-50 and 1950-51 by the Deputy Financial Adviser to the Government of West Bengal that you are alleged to be guilty of glaring acts of corruption involving loss of Government money, I do hereby suspend you forthwith under order of the Commissioner, Refugee-Rehabilitation -- 10a, Auckland Road, Calcutta. . . . . you are also directed to show cause in writing by 27-8-51 why you should not be dismissed from Government Service or other- wise suitably punished for carelessness, corruption and loss of Government money. . . . . "although the headings of the charges have been specified, this letter by itself does not give the particulars. It is stated however that the report of the Deputy Financial Adviser was made available to the petitioner and no complaint is made on that behalf. The petitioner in due course forwarded his explanation, described as his written statement (annexure 'd'1 to the petition) to the District Magistrate, Burdwan through the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalna. The Refugee Rehabilitation Officer requested the District Magistrate to enquire into the charges, who in his turn asked the Sub-Divisional Officer to make a confidential enquiry into the charges. The Sub Divisional Officer made such an enquiry. In the counter-affidavit filed by Jagat Kishore Roy Choudhury it is stated as follows:"thereupon the Sub Divisional Officer (opposite party No. 3) made a confidential enquiry on the allegations by taking evidence from the persons who purported to have issued the 'amalnamas' upon which the loans were recommended and from other eligible persons who could throw light on the allegations and losses of Government money. He found the petitioner guilty and