ORDER

1. The instant writ appeal takes exception to order dated 10.1.2006 (Annexure-A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3718 of 2001, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed against termination of his services.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant applied for appointment on the post of Water-man under the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Chhindwara. Pursuant to his application, a call letter dated 25.7.1994 was issued for his interview. After interview, the appellant was selected and vide order dated 29.07.1994 (Annexure-R-1), he was appointed as full time Water-man against Contingency Fund. The appellant further states that having found his service satisfactory, he was given promotion on the post of Peon vide order dated 1.5.1996. He states that he continued to work on the post of Peon. He was on continuous duty till 2.1.2000. However, on account of a false case registered against him at the instance of one D.R. Baghel, who was working as Naib Nazir, the appellant was taken into custody. When the appellant was released, he immediately, submitted an application in prescribed format for earned leave. However, without considering his application vide order dated 20.1.2000 (Annexure-P-1) his services have been terminated. The appellant filed an appeal to the appellate Authority which has also been rejected vide order dated 25.11.2000 (Annexure-P-2). The appellant, therefore, approached this Court in writ petition which has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appellant is in the instant writ appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that a perusal of the order of termination dated 20.1.2020 shows that the same is a stigmatic. According to him, without following the principles of natural justice, the services of the appellant could not have been terminated. He further states that the order is passed on 20.1.2000 alleging his unauthorized absence with effect from 3.1.2000. Such an order from the face of it is a stigmatic and hence, the same should have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. He also submits that the order of his promotion dated 1.5.1996 clearly states that he became regular employee of the respondents.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the prayer and he submits that there were serious allegations against the appellant and he was bound over under sections 103 and 107 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that the impugned order is not a stigmatic order. Since the appellant was working against Contingency Fund Establishment, therefore, there was no necessity to conduct any inquiry before his termination.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

6. The Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India [ AIR 1964 SC 449], has considered the scope of applicability of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India in a case of dismissal or removal of a temporary employee. In that case, the employee was working as a temporary Second Division Clerk in the General Post Office. His services were terminated on the ground that it was found undesirable to retain him in a Government service and hence, with one month’s notice, he was discharged from services. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in that context has held that the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution can be invoked not only by permanent Government servants, but also by public servants who are employed as temporary servants, or probationers, and so, there can be no difficulty in holding that if a temporary public servant or a probationer is served with an order by which his services are terminated, and the order unambiguously indicates that the said termination is the result of punishment sought to be imposed on him, he can legitimately invoke the protection of Article 311 and challenge the validity of the said termination on the