Termination of service of a temporary employee without a show-cause notice does not violate Article 311 of the Constitution, and a certificate of service issued in accordance with the prescribed format and does not contain any false or misleading information does not stigmatize the employee.

1. This petition of Baldev Prasad Chaturvedi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of Controller of Defence Accounts, Eastern Command, Meerut passed on 5th of October, 1959 terminating his services as a temporary employee under Rule 5 of the Defence Accounts Department (Temporary Service) Rules 1949.

2. The petitioner was appointed a lower division clerk in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts Eastern Command Meerut on 11th of April, 1955. Subsequently he was transferred on compassionate grounds at his own referred on compassionate grounds at his own request to his home town of Mathura with effect from 16th of September, 1957. On 16th of January, 1959 a letter was issued by the Local Audit Officer calling upon the petitioner to improve his conduct and work failing which his services would have to be terminated. Eventually in pursuance of the impugned order of 5th of October, 1959 the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect form 28th September, 1959. It was mentioned in the order that the petitioner will be paid a sum "equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowance for one month which is the period of notice due to him."

Later, the petitioner asked for a certificate from the Department and it was granted to him on 21st of October, 1959. In this certificate which is Exhibit P-1 it was stated that the petitioner was employed in the Defence Accounts Department for the period 11th of April, 1955 to 28th of September, 1959 and his ability as a lower division clerk "was below average" and against the column of Character was stated that conduct was unsatisfactory". It may be mentioned that under paragraph 445 of the Defence Accounts Department (Office Manual) Part I such a certificate may be granted to non-gazetted personnel who have served in the Defence Accounts Department on application. A specimen certificate is given in Annexure A and there is no manner of doubt that Exhibit P. 1 is in accordance therewith. It is mentioned below the specimen certificate in Annexure A that under the column of ability a person is to be classified as excellent /very good/good/below average poor "character", it is stated underneath the Annexure that a person concerned should be classified as exemplary/very good/good unsatisfactory as the case may be. Thus the certificate of service which was asked for by the petitioner bore the entries which should be filled in accordance with the provisions of the specimen certificate.

3. It may be also be mentioned that in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 445, it is enjoined on the authorities concerned that "in granting certificates care should be exercised that the whole truth in respect of the individual concerned is stated in the certificate."

4. The representation and appeals preferred by the petitioner having failed he has approached this Court on the ground that he termination of service without any show-cause notice is void being in breach of the provisions of clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution which required that no civil servant, "shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in tank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him".

5. it is contended by Mr. Nath the learned counsel for the petitioner that the certificate of service which followed the order of the termination of services has placed a stigma on the petitioner which makes it impossible for him to obtain re-employment elsewhere. There termination of services thus has been accompanied by penal consequences which made it incumbent on the respondent Union to have a regular enquiry before removing him form service. It is argued on his behalf by Mr. Narula that the statutory rules required that a charge-sheet should in the first instance have been drawn up against the petitioner and a regular enquiry held before an enquiry held before an order of punishment was passed. Reliance has been place