The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between termination as a punishment and termination under the rules of employment, emphasizing the need for compliance with Art.311 of the Constitution if the termination is founded on charges of misconduct, inefficiency, or negligence.

1. This is an appeal against the decision of Chandrasekhara Menon J. quashing the order of termination of the services of the respondent and directing reinstatement with effect from 8 21968 with all consequential benefits Respondent who was the petitioner in the Original Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution was a postman in the Post and Telegraphs Department. He was a temporary civil servant. He was governed by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. His services were terminated under R.5(1) of the said rules by Ext. P4 order. Representation against Ext. P4 order was rejected by the Chairman, Post and Telegraphs Board, New Delhi, the 3rd appellant in the appeal. Ext. P10 is the communication concerning such rejection. Ext. P4 order as confirmed by Ext. P10 was challenged in the Original Petition and that challenge succeeded before the learned single judge.

2. The learned judge has found that in the circumstances in which the order of termination was passed a case of punishment can be clearly spelt out and on the basis of the tests laid down by the Supreme Court the order Ext. P4 has to be taken as an order of punishment. Since the requirements of Art.311 (2) had not been complied with the order was held to be void. This view taken by the learned single judge is challenged in this appeal.

3. It may be taken as well settled by a series of decisions by the Supreme Court that an order of termination of the services of a temporary civil servant without showing reason for such termination would not, for that reason, be bad. If the order terminating the services of a civil servant is under the rules of employment, without anything more, such termination will not attract Art.311 of the Constitution. If the order of termination is as a punishment for misconduct such an order would be bad even in the case of a temporary civil servant. The mere fact that an enquiry into allegations of misconduct had preceded the order of termination need not by itself mean that the termination is by way of punishment. If the motive for the termination is the allegation of misconduct that will not vitiate the order of termination provided the foundation of the order is not such misconduct. What is decisive is really whether it can be found in any given case that the order is by way of punishment.

4. The order Ext. P4 which was challenged before the learned single judge does not indicate any reason for such termination. But in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants the background of such termination was indicated. In the counter-affidavit, in answer to the allegations in the Original Petition, it was stated thus:

"This is a case of termination of service of a temporary employee for continued bad performance and bad conduct. He was severely warned four times but there was no improvement. Hence, bis service had to be terminated He had been made aware of his bad work and conduct and was given an opportunity to improve. But since his work and conduct continued to be the same his services bad to be terminated. The termination of services cannot mean reversion to a lower cadre. It means absolute severance of all connection with the Department."

5. It was contended before the learned single judge that the above averments in the counter-affidavit were indicative that punishment has been inflicted on the petitioner in the guise of retrenchment simpliciter. "Reliance was placed on certain decisions of the Supreme Court on this aspect of the case. The learned single judge noticed the distinction between motive for termination and foundation for the order of termination and proceeded to state

"What is stated in the instant case in the counter-affidavit is that the case of termination of the petitioner was for continued bad performance and bad conduct and his termination cannot mean reversion to a lower cadre; it means an absolute severance of all connections with the department. It clearly spells out a case of punishmen