R.L. Gulati, J. - (1.) The petitioner was a Junior Clerk in the Planning Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh.At the relevant time he was working in the office of the Block Development officer, Chakranagar Block, district Etawah. The 3rd respondent, Mohan Lal, was the Block Development Officer at the material time. The petitioner has alleged that Mohan Lal belonged to the scheduled caste and as the petitioner had made certain remarks against the scheduled caste, Mohan Lal got annoyed and took several steps to spoil the petitioner's record and to remove him from service. It has been stated that finally, the third respondent, Mohan Lal complained to the Additional District Magistrate, Planning, Etawah about the work and conduct of the petitioner and asked the latter to transfer the petitioner but he orally told he Additional District Magistrate, to remove the petitioner from service. Consequently, he petitioner received an order dated 26th November, 1971 from the Additional District Magistrate, Etawah saying that the petitioner's services shall stand terminated after the expiry of 30 days from lie date of the receipt of the notice. The petitioner has now approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The petitioner has made serious allegations of personal bias against Motilal and even though Motilal has been impleaded as a party by name he has not chosen to controvert those allegations and, therefore, the petitioner's allegations have to be accepted. The petitioner has alleged that his services were terminated by way of punishment on account of the misconduct attributed to him and since the procedure prescribed under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was not followed, the impugned order is void. No doubt the impugned order is innocuous in term and it does not say that the petitioner was re-moved from service for any misconduct but having regard to the allegations in the writ petition, which have not been controverted, it is clear that the petitioner has been removed from service because of the various complaints made against him by Mohan Lal and the specified misconduct attributed to him. It is now well settled that an order of removal even though innocuous in term may amount to an order of punishment if he surrounding circumstances point out to that conclusion. I am satisfied that the circumstances of the case show very clearly that the petitioner was removed from service by way of punishment and since the protection as envisaged under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was denied to him he impugned order is liable to be struck down.
(3.) That apart, the impugned order suffers from an infirmity of a more serious nature. The petitioner has alleged that persons junior to him are still in service while the petitioner has been discharged. He has also alleged that there is no surplus staff in his cadre calling for a retrenchment. This allegation has not been denied. This is again well settled that even a temporary employee is entitled to the protection of Article 16 of the Constitution. Even when a temporary employee is removed from service it must be shown that no discrimination has been practised against him in the sense that he has been asked to quit while his juniors are allowed to continue. If there is retrenchment on account of departmental exigencies the authorities have to follow the rule of last come first go. They cannot pick and choose persons for retrenchment.;