Harbans Singh, J. - (1.) FACTS giving rise to this writ petition may briefly be stated as under: Darshan Singh was appointed as an Inspector of shops and commercial establishments in the leave reserve vacancies on 27th of May, 1957. His letter of appointment (annexure 'A') of that date in Clause (B) of paragraph 2, specifically mentioned that his services "will be purely temporary for the present and liable to be terminated at any time without notice." He worked in his capacity as art Inspector at various places till on 29th of September, 1960, the Labour Commissioner sent him a letter to the effect that his doubtful integrity and inefficient work rendered him unfit for retention in Government service any more, and he was called upon to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated forthwith. The Petitioner submitted his explanation on 6th of October, 1960, in which he asked for the copies of the complaints to enable him to furnish his explanation. On 7th of December, 1960 lie was informed, vide, annexure 'D' that the aforesaid show -cause notice Issued to him had bean withdrawn. Some 8 days thereafter however, he received the following letter from the labour Commissioner (annexure 'E'): Since your work and conduct during the period yes have worked as, shop Inspector in this department has not been found satisfactory, your services are hereby terminated in accordance with the terms and condition of your employment as contained in the appointment later issued to you with this office letter No. 9953 dated 27th May, 1957, with effect from the date your substitute reaches Kot Kapura to take over the charge from you. He made certain representations to the Ministers etc. but having failed to gat redress, he filed the present writs petition.
(2.) THE point taken, in the return filed is that the services were terminated in accordance with the terms of his appointment and that the termination did not amount to punishment and, consequently, the case did not fall within the purview of Article 311 of the Constitution. There is no dispute that the post which was held by the Petitioner was purely temporary and in terms of his appointment, the same could be terminated at any time by the State Government without assigning any reason and without giving any notice. The law with regard to temporary Government servants has been laid down in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India : AIR 1958 SC 36 and the principles laid down therein have been summarised in another judgment, reported as State of Bihar v. Gopi Kishore : AIR 1960 SC 689 at p. 691, as follows: 1. Appointment to a post on probation gives to the; person so appointed no right to the post and his services may be terminated without taking recourse to the proceedings laid down in the relevant rules for dismissing public servant, or removing him from service. 2. The termination of employment of a person holding a post on probation without any enquiry whatsoever cannot be said to deprive him of any right to a post and is, therefore, no punishment. 3. But, if instead of terminating such a person's service without any enquiry, the employer chooses to hold an enquiry into his alleged misconduct, or inefficiency, or for some similar reason, the termination of service is by way of punishment, because it puts a stigma on his competence and thus affects his future career. In such a case, he is entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
(3.) IN the last mentioned case, if the probationer Is discharged on any one of those grounds without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his discharge it will amount for a removal from service within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and will, therefore, be liable to be struck down. BUT , if the employer simply terminates the services of a probationer without holding an enquiry an without giving him a reasonable chance of showing cause against his removal from service, the probationary civil servant can have no cause of action, even though the real motive behind the removal from service may have been? that his employer thought him to be unsuitable for the post he was temporarily holding, on account of his misconduct, or inefficiency, or some such cause. The third proposition was further explained in State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das : AIR 1961 SC 177, where It was said that "the third proposition in the latter case -refers to an enquiry into allegations of misconduct QF inefficiency with a view, if they we/e found established to imposing punishment and not to an enquiry whether a probationer should be confirmed." The result, therefore, is that if the State Government terminates the services of a temporary Government servant without assigning any reason and without holding any enquiry whatever, the Government servant concerned can have no grievance Again even if the State Government holds an enquiry prior to terminating the services but such an enquiry is made by the State Government only in order to satisfy itself whether the temporary Government servant is efficient and otherwise fit to be retained in service and after such an enquiry, the State Government just terminates the services without assigning any reason, such a termination is also valid and Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted. As stated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the motive, which prompts the State Government to dispense with the services of a tempera/Government servant in terms of his contract, is not material.;