The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of a government servant's services may not necessarily amount to a punishment under Art.311(2) of the Constitution, and the determination of whether it constitutes a punishment depends on various factors, including the nature of the appointment, the right to the post, and the presence of civil consequences.

1. The petitioner was a village assistant, appointed temporarily as per proceedings Ext. P2 dated 23-8-67 of the District Collector, Kottayam under R.9(a)(1) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. His services were terminated by the first respondent, the Special Tahsildar, Nedumkar-darn with effect from 23-21970, as per his letter, Ext. P1 dated 23 21970-The petitioner contends that Ext. P1 is really a dismissal from service, and that it is violative of the protection available under Art.311 of the Constitution. He has, therefore, filed this writ petition to quash Ext. P1 and for incidental reliefs.

2. The circumstances under which the petitioner's services were terminated are clear from the counter-affidavit of the first respondent and the reply affidavit of the petitioner. The period of appointment of the petitioner and other temporarily appointed village assistants was extended from time to time by the Government with the concurrence of the Kerala Public Service Commission. That period was due to expire on 23 21970. It was further extended by the District Recruitment Board, Kottayam by its letter Ext. P3 dated 2-3-70 till the end of August 1970 or till the nominees of the District Recruitment Board joined duty, whichever was earlier. In the meanwhile it was detected that the petitioner omitted from a mahazar prepared by him for assignment of certain Government land, a few valuable trees which were standing therein, and thereby caused heavy loss to the Government. The matter was reported to the second respondent, the Sub Collector, Devicolam and also to the District Collector, Kottayam. The District Collector, by his letter Ext. RI dated 28 21970 directed the first respondent to dispense with the services of the petitioner and also informed him that the Revenue Inspector, who accepted the mahazar, was being put under suspension subject to enquiry. The second respondent also directed the first respondent by letter, Ext. P4 dated 19 21970, that the petitioner's service may be terminated immediately, with information to the Employment Exchange. Ext. P4 directed that the petitioner's pay and allowances need be disbursed to him, only after the enquiry regarding the preparation of the false mahazar was completed. It is clear from the above facts that the petitioner's services were terminated not because the extended period of his service ended, but because the appointing authority did not want to continue the services of a person found to have committed a fraudulent act to deceive the Government. If that was a punishment inflicted on him, there is no doubt that it would be invalid, as Art.311 of the Constitution would be attracted, and the action taken against him would offend the said provision. The petitioner was a person appointed under R.9(a) (1) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services R.1958; and the question for consideration is whether the termination of his services under the circumstances referred to above was a punishment.

3. A number of decisions were cited before me in support of the rival contentions. I shall first refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhingra v. Union of India (AIR. 1958 S.C. 36). In that case, the appellant, who was holding substantially a post in Class III service in Northern Railway, and who had been appointed to officiate in a post in Class 11 service, was reverted to his original post consequent to on certain adverse remarks against him in the confidential report of his superior officer. The question arose whether the case attracted Art.311 (2) of the Constitution There is a very learned discussion in the judgment of S. R. Das, C. J. who delivered the majority decision, about the constitutional history and the scope of the protection available to a civil servant under Art.311 of the Constitution. His Lordship has pointed out the three cases (vide page 48 of the judgment) where alone Art.311(2) is attracted. They are, (j) A person appointed substantially