( 1 ) ). By this petition, the petitioner has questioned the termination order from the service passed by the Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation on 30-11-1989, as per Annexure b by invoking the aids of the provisions of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) ). A conspectus of the material facts leading to the rise of the present petition, may be narrated, so as to appreciate the merits of this petition and the challenge against it. The petitioner was selected for the post of laboratory Technician by the respondent-Corporation. She was appointed on the said post by virtue of an order dated 8-3-1989, as Laboratory technician, in the Malaria Department of the respondent-Corporation, in the pay-scale of Rs. 500-900. She was appointed on a temporary basis on a permanent clear vacancy.

( 3 ) ). The respondent-Corporation terminated the services of the petitioner, on 30-11-1989. The petitioner has inter alia contended that the impugned termination order is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, null and void and illegal. It is also alleged that so many temporary employees working in the respondent-Corporation since last more than five years are retained and her services are terminated so as to put some other person and favour him. It is further contended that the impugned order of termination is passed without following the procedure and it is bad in law.

( 4 ) ). The respondent-Corporation has traversed the allegations made in the petition. It is denied that the impugned order of termination was passed with any mala fide intention. It is denied that it is bad or illegal. The respondent-Corporation has further contended that the petitioner was not found fit for the work for which she was appointed temporarily and therefore, her services came to be terminated. It is also stated by the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner had not been working since the day she was appointed. In fact, the petitioner was instigating others not to work.

( 5 ) ). The petitioner has in affidavit-in-rejoinder further contended that the simple termination order is as such punitive and it cannot be passed without holding any inquiry. It is denied that the petitioner had refused to work.

( 6 ) ). The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of termination of services is not an order of termination simplicitor but is by way of punishment and since it is stigmatic, it cannot be passed without observing the principles of natural justice. Thus, it is contended that there is violation of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. This contention is seriously, opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

( 7 ) ). In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, it would be necessary to refer the relevant material on record. The termination order at Annexure b prima facie appears to be an order of termination simplicitor. However, it is alleged that it is passed by way of punishment and the impugned order is stigmatic. It is contended that for deciding the exact nature of the order in question, the Court has to take into consideration the allegations and the averments made against the petitioner in the affidavit-in-reply. Attention of the Court is invited to para 5 (1) of the affidavit-in-reply. Relying on the same, it is contended that the impugned order of termination is punitive one. It would be expedient to refer the relevant averments made in para 5. 1 of the affidavit-in-reply. A material portion thereof reads as under :"5. 1 I say that the petitioner has not been working since the day she was appointed. In fact the correspondence would show that at all times she has instigated others not to work. The petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory technician to find out whether a particular slide containing blood shows positive or negative for Malaria etc , or not. She refused to do the work and insisted that the microscope which is entrusted to her must first be got certified and it is only