JUDGMENT

H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This writ petition is directed against an order No. B-2968/XIIB-699/1956, dated August 27, 1962, of the State Government, terminating the appointment of the petitioner form the post of Assistant Economic Botanist (Cotton).

2. The petitioner had a brilliant academic career. He passed his B.Sc. Agriculture from the University of Agra and was placed in First Division. He obtained his degree of M.Sc. in Agriculture in First Division and was first in order of merit. He was appointed a Botanical Assistant in Group I of Subordinate Agriculture Service on 1.2.1950, but he was relieved on 3rd July 1950 on account of the termination of the post. He was, however, re-appointed in the same Group on the same service on 25th of July 1950 and was posted as Senior Agriculture Inspector at Lucknow and then was transferred to Bulandshahr. While serving the Department in that capacity, he applied for the post of Assistant Economic Botanist (Cotton) which was advertised by the Public Service Commission in 1957 and was appointed as such by order dated 30th of April 1958 on probation for a period of two years. The petitioner took charge of the office on the 26th of May 1958. His probationary period was extended under subsequent Government orders till 30th September 1962 and the impugned order, as indicated earlier, was passed on August 27, 1962.

3. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the aforesaid order on a variety of grounds. His contention is that it is not a simple order of discharge but one of punishment which has been passed on the basis of adverse entries made by the Economic Botanist against the petitioner in his character roll and as such leaves an indelible stigma affecting his future career, and as no reasonable opportunity of showing cause has been afforded to the petitioner, the impugned order is wholly illegal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that even if the impugned order is treated as an innocuous order discharging the petitioner from service, it is bad in law because the provisions of rule 55(3) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules have been infringed and the petitioner had neither been apprised of the grounds nor given an opportunity to show cause against the order. Learned counsel contends that though in the petition no specific plea has been raised on the basis of infringement of the provisions of the rules, he is entitled to raise the same as it is covered under ground No. C. of the petition which has clearly affirmed that the impugned order was void being in violation of the protection granted under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that in accordance with the recommendations of Nalagarh Committee constituted by the Government of India for the purposes of laying down principles and policies with regard to the assessment of research work in the Agriculture Department, the State Government constituted a Board to examine the work and performance of the petitioner. The work and performance of the petitioner was assessed and examined by the Board successively in the years 1960, 1961 and 1962 and its recommendations were that the petitioner was professionally incompetent and in addition he made little efforts to apply himself in the discharge of his duties. The Board was of the view that Sri Tyagi should not be confirmed in U.P. Agricultural Service Class II. It has been further averred that as the State Government was not satisfied with the work and performance of the petitioner who was on probation, "the State Government terminated his services without framing any charges against him. As no charges were framed the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing or explanation.

6. Thus it is admitted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing or explanation before the impugned order was passed.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the State has urged t