Om Prakash, J. - (1.) The petitioner having been selected by the Public Service Commission, U. P., was appointed as Senior Marketing Inspector by the Regional Food Controller, Meerut Region, Meerut (respondent No. 3) by the order, dated 23-10-1967. Thereafter an order, dated 23-10-1971 for terminating his services was caused to be served upon on 25-10-1971 by the respondent No. 3. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Roorkee, who dismissed the suit. The dispute was eventually carried to the Services Tribunal, which too declined the relief of reinstatement of the petitioner and hence the instant writ petition.
(2.) The short question for consideration is whether the termination order, dated 23-10-1971 (Annexure-'l' to the writ petition) was validly passed. Whereas the contention of the petitioner is that though the order (Annexure-1') purported to be innacuous as termination simpliciter on the face of it, but in reality, the order was passed as a result of misconduct and, therefore, the petitioner was virtually dismissed from the service without giving any opportunity as envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution. It is on this ground, the petitioner seeks quashing of the termination order (Annexure-1'). In his counter-affidavit, the Deputy Regional Marketing Officer denied having violated Article 311 of the Constitution. It is averred by him that the termination order (Annexure-T) does not cause any aspersion or stigma against the petitioner and his services were simply terminated by the order (Annexure- 1'), as the petitioner was a temporary employee. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, the averment made is that the Government did not think it proper to continue the petitioner in service any more, and, therefore, it terminated the services of the petitioner having offered one month's salary in lieu of notice. It is denied that the foundation of Annexure- 1' was misconduct on the part of the petitioner. In short, the plea of the Department is that the order (Annexure- 1') does not amount to dismissal of the petitioner from service, but that that is termination simpliciter.
(3.) To determine the question whether or not the termination order (Annexure 1') is passed on misconduct of the petitioner or whether that is a termination simpliciter. it is necessary to go into back-drop of the said order. There is a well established law that the termination order should not be taken on the face value, but the veil of form of such order should be lifted by piercing into the facts preceding to the termination order.;