JUDGMENT : NEVASKAR, J. 1. This is a petition under Art. 226, Constitution of India for the issue of a writ or direction under that provision. The petitioner does not state the nature of the writ or direction he seeks. The facts set forth in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed 'temporarily and provisionally' by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Southern Division, Indore as a clerk in the office of the Inspector of Agriculture, Mandsaur on Rs. 40/- per month in the grade of Rs. 40-3-70 with effect from 13-2-1952 by Order No. 5971/55/52 dated 31-3-1952. 2. On 12-6-1952 however the Collector, District Mandsaur by his order No. 486-C/52 dated 12-6-1952 suddenly and without notice to him terminated his services alleging that he was a member of the R. S. S. i.e., a political party. 3. The petitioner's complaint is that he was not given slightest opportunity of showing cause either against the truth of the allegation against him or regarding the punishment intended to be inflicted upon him in the form of termination of his service which amounts to removal from service within the meaning of Art. 311, Constitution of India. Petitioner alleged that he was not the member of R. S. S. nor is R. S. S. a political party. It is further alleged that on 14-7-1952 he applied for a certified copy of the order of the Collector but he was not supplied the same in spite of reminder dated 21-7-1952 and a registered letter dated 28-7-1952 with necessary copying charges. 4. After waiting for some time he filed an appeal to the Chief Secretary, Madhya Bharat which was dismissed as time barred. 5. After the service of notice to the Chief Secretary, Madhya Bharat, requesting the Government to set aside the order of the Collector terminating his services, to direct his reinstatement and to give him reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action taken against him, he filed the present petition. 6. The main ground taken by the petitioner is that his termination of service under the circumstances set forth above was contrary to Art. 311, Constitution of India and also contrary to Madhya Bharat Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1950. 7. 6. The main ground taken by the petitioner is that his termination of service under the circumstances set forth above was contrary to Art. 311, Constitution of India and also contrary to Madhya Bharat Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1950. 7. The Assistant Secretary to the Government of Madhya Bharat in the Department of Development and Labour filed a return on affidavit admitting the facts pertaining to the appointment of the petitioner as alleged by him. 8. It was however stated that under departmental Circular No. 602/11-221/49 dated 10-2-1950 it was necessary to verify the character and the antecedents of the petitioner and in pursuance of it the Collector Mandsaur asked for a report from the police within whose jurisdiction the petitioner resided. On receipt of a report from the police that the petitioner was an active member of the R. S. S. the Collector by his order dated 21-7-1952 terminated the services of the petitioner. It was asserted by the Deputy Secretary that the Collector was the controlling authority and was within the ambit of his powers to deal with temporary servants of the department. It is further alleged that the true copy of the order was offered to the petitioner which he declined to accept. The stand taken by the Government is that the petitioner was appointed on 'a temporary basis' and that his services were liable to be terminated in the manner done. Article 311, Constitution of India is said to have no application to the case. Petitioner's right to compensation, if any, permissible under the Rules could be considered but that no writ can issue for its determination. 9. It is also asserted that the case of the petitioner is under consideration of the Government and the writ is premature. 10. On these submissions of either side the only point which requires consideration is whether the termination of services of the petitioner violated Art. 311, Constitution of India. 11. This Article is as follows : (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or at civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. 11. This Article is as follows : (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or at civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him; Provided that this clause shall not apply (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; (b) where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing it is not reasonably practicable to give to that person an opportunity of showing cause; or (c) where the President or Governor or Rajpramukh, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to give to that person such an opportunity. (3) If any question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to give to any person an opportunity of showing cause under Cl. (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank, as the case may be, shall be final. 12. It is clear from this provision that Art. 311, Constitution of India provides a constitutional safeguard for the persons in the service of the Union or in the Civil service of a State in two respects. Firstly such a person cannot be dismissed or removed (from service) by any authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed and secondly such a person shall not be inflicted penalties of- (i) Dismissal (ii) Removal from service (iii) Reduction in rank or one or more of them unless the person concerned is given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. 13. 13. In cases where a person is in permanent employment of a State or the Union and is dismissed or reduced in rank the matter is beyond doubt or controversy and where there is absence of reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his dismissal or reduction in rank his constitutional right is violated and the order is inoperative. 14. However where a person is in temporary employment or where he is removed from service the matter is not beyond doubt or controversy. It is said that where a person is merely in temporary employment and is removed from service the reason which motivated the action is not relevant or material. Removal of such a person is not what is contemplated to fall under Art. 311(2), Constitution of India even if no opportunity be given to him as required by that Article. 15. It is also said that every removal from service is not 'removal' within the contemplation of Art. 311(2), Constitution of India. There are cases where a person's services are terminated because they axe not needed, or where he is compulsorily retired, not as a measure of punishment for any alleged act of misconduct or inefficiency but on the ground of administrative convenience or requirement or some such cause and no stigma is intended to attach to the conduct, reputation or character of that person. In such cases although there may be removal from service in the sense that he is no longer in service yet such a removal is not what is contemplated to fall under Art. 311(2), Constitution of India. 16. It is contended by Mr. Khanvalkar that the removal of the petitioner in this case is in direct contravention of Art. 311(2). He was afforded no opportunity to convince the authority concerned, that he in fact is not a member of a political party as alleged and the action for his removal is not called for. If his removal is maintained as proper on that ground that would attach as a stigma and he may find it difficult to seek employment in future. It was urged that Art. 311(2) applies equally in the case of persons in temporary as well as permanent service of a State or the Union. 17. If his removal is maintained as proper on that ground that would attach as a stigma and he may find it difficult to seek employment in future. It was urged that Art. 311(2) applies equally in the case of persons in temporary as well as permanent service of a State or the Union. 17. On the other hand it is contended by the learned Advocate-General relying upon- 'Prem Bihari v. State of Madhya Bharat', AIR 1954 Madh-B 49 (A), that the petitioner was appointed only temporarily and provisionally and the only right which he is said to possess to the amount of compensation in the form of one month's pay, in lieu of notice, could be considered departmentally. In such cases the reason which motivated his removal is not material and his case does not fall within Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. 18. It is further contended that even if it be accepted that Art. 311(2) of the Constitution applies equally to permanent as well as temporary servants still in this case the removal is not intended as a measure of punishment for any act on his part which may involve a stigma or blemish to his character which is of a permanent nature as in those cases where a person is removed for inefficiency, corruption or any other kind of similar misconduct. 19. Every citizen according to him has a right to be a member of a political party. It is not a stigma or blemish. Only thing is that such a conduct on his part is inconsistent with his duties as a member of the civil service. If he belongs to a political party occasions are bound to arise during the course of his employment where his political affiliations may stand in conflict with his duty as a public servant. 20. If he is removed in order that such a situation may be avoided, it cannot be said that he is condemned for any wrong done by him. His is a perfectly honourable conduct and his removal for such a conduct can by no means be said to be a punishment. Nor can it be said that a blemish has been made to attach to him which may debar him from seeking employment elsewhere. His is a perfectly honourable conduct and his removal for such a conduct can by no means be said to be a punishment. Nor can it be said that a blemish has been made to attach to him which may debar him from seeking employment elsewhere. Reliance is placed in this connection upon the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in- 'Satish Chandra v. Union of India', AIR 1953 SC 250 (B); and- 'Shamlal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 369 (C). It is also urged that the petitioner was employed not only temporarily but provisionally and that for this reason his removal does not fall under Art. 311(2). 21. On the admitted facts of the case it is clear that the petitioner was only a temporary servant. It is also a fact that in the order of his appointment word 'provisionally' was also used. But in my opinion there is hardly any difference between the appointment which is temporary and one which is provisional. Word 'provisional' according to Oxford Dictionary means temporary. Even under the Civil Service Punishment and Appeals Rules, Madhya Bharat, there is no such a separate category as that of servants who are employed provisionally. In my opinion the fact that the petitioner was employed provisionally does not confer a higher power for his removal than what would be had his employment been temporary. 22. Then having regard to the wordings of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution no distinction is drawn between persons who are in temporary employment and those who are in permanent service. Had the object been to afford constitutional safeguard only to persons in permanent service and not to those who are in temporary service it would have been specifically so provided in the Article itself. Even having regard to the contest in which the word is used and the object behind this constitutional safeguard it cannot be said that persons in the temporary employment cannot claim the protection afforded by the Article. Even having regard to the contest in which the word is used and the object behind this constitutional safeguard it cannot be said that persons in the temporary employment cannot claim the protection afforded by the Article. As has been held in the previous decision reported in- 'Vijayshankar v. State', AIR 1954 Madh-B 177 (D); "The provision is made "(It was) more in recognition of the principle that no man should be condemned unheard rather than for affording protection to services and particularly for this that we find that when a punishment, which would be considered to be drastic is to be imposed an opportunity of hearing is given. Punishments of reduction in rank, removal and dismissal are considered punishments which can be taken to be as serious as conviction for a criminal charge and it is for this that the protection contemplated under Art. 311 is given". 23. Bearing in mind this object behind the statutory safeguard if we examine the wordings of Art. 311 of the Constitution it is clear that the provision contemplated that the person referred to therein is charged with the commission of some fault or violation of rules of good conduct probity, integrity, discipline or those which are departmental and are intended to keep the services in proper state of efficiency and this act on his part is supposed to merit punishment in one of the forms mentioned therein. It is also clear that this form of punishment is considered to be serious enough as would justify the placing of the authority concerned in the position of quasi-judicial Tribunal by imposing an obligation not to impose such punishment without affording an opportunity to the person concerned to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. 24. If that is the position of the person charged and that is the obligation of the authority which proposes to take action against him, it is not possible to make any distinction between the person in the permanent employment and a person in the temporary employment of the State or the Union. In either case the charge is the same. Risk of condemnation is equally serious. It, therefore, follows that the obligation of the authority must be hedged in by the same restrictions. The authority cannot act unless it affords opportunity to answer why he should be given the proposed punishment. 25. In either case the charge is the same. Risk of condemnation is equally serious. It, therefore, follows that the obligation of the authority must be hedged in by the same restrictions. The authority cannot act unless it affords opportunity to answer why he should be given the proposed punishment. 25. Although in the Supreme Court case reported in ' AIR 1953 SC 250 (B)' their Lordships had to deal with the case of a temporary employment, the removal of the petitioner in that case was not as a measure of punishment. The facts indicate that there was termination of contractual service by one month's notice and there was no question regarding any default or blemish on the part of the servant concerned. He was liable to be discharged from service on one month's notice according to the terms of his contract. And the authority had availed of that provision in the contract for the termination of his service. It was held in such circumstances that it was not a removal within the meaning of Article 311. I do not read in this decision of their Lordships the view that where there is a termination of service of a person in temporary employment of a State or the Union Art. 311(2), Constitution of India can never come into play. Their Lordships do not appear to hold that even if a person of this sort is dismissed or removed from service because of some fault committed by him meriting that punishment he cannot claim protection under Art. 311(2), Constitution of India. 26. The case relied upon by the learned Advocate General and reported in 'AIR 1954 Madh B 49 (A)' can be distinguished on the ground that the petitioner in that case was removed from his temporary service not as a disciplinary action. 27. No doubt Dixit, J. in that case referred to with approval the decision in 'Krishan Gopal v. State of Punjab', AIR 1952 Punj 366 (E) wherein the view is taken that the reason which motivated the action of removal of a person in temporary employment is not material, provided he is given one month's notice before his removal. 28. 27. No doubt Dixit, J. in that case referred to with approval the decision in 'Krishan Gopal v. State of Punjab', AIR 1952 Punj 366 (E) wherein the view is taken that the reason which motivated the action of removal of a person in temporary employment is not material, provided he is given one month's notice before his removal. 28. But reading the judgment as a whole it does not appear that the learned Judge wanted to hold that even if a person in temporary employment of a State or the Union is dismissed or removed from service for any act of inefficiency indiscipline or the like, Art. 311(2), Constitution of India cannot be invoked by him. In fact the learned Judge appears to hold that in such cases he can claim protection. This is clear from the following observations of his in AIR 1954 Madh B 49 at p. 51 (A). ".....the petitioner would not be entitled to any redress under Art. 226 of the Constitution even if he was suspended as a measure of punishment under the Madhya Bharat Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1950 or if his temporary services were terminated not as a disciplinary action but in accordance with the condition of service governing temporary employees". 29. If we take the case of 'reduction in rank' of a temporary servant the position will be still clearer. In that case it cannot be said with reason that he would be reduced in rank without any opportunity being given as required by Article 311. If then he cannot be reduced in rank, he cannot be removed also for any act of indiscipline or inefficiency meriting his removal without his feeing given an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed action. 30. In 'Kanta Charan v. Postmaster General, Bihar, (S) AIR 1955 Pat 381 (P), Das, C.J. went to the length of holding that the Court looks to the substance and not to the form of the order (of renewal). Where the order is in substance an order of removal on a definite charge alleged against a temporary servant but no opportunity is afforded to him to show cause and moulding the order moulded as one of discharge on giving one month's notice, the order contravenes Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India and ought to be quashed. 31. Where the order is in substance an order of removal on a definite charge alleged against a temporary servant but no opportunity is afforded to him to show cause and moulding the order moulded as one of discharge on giving one month's notice, the order contravenes Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India and ought to be quashed. 31. In the present case that position is not called for because in the order itself it was stated that the petitioner was removed from service as he is an active worker of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh which is a political party. 32. So feat if it be an act of indiscipline involving punishment In the form of removal from service It is clear then the termination of his service would fall under the category of 'removal' within the meaning of the term as used in Art. 312(2), Constitution of India. 33. This leads us to the second contention raised by the learned Advocate General, viz., that the fact that the petitioner is a member of a political party is by no means an act involving any blemish to his character which may remain attached to him hereafter and is as honourable as any honourable act can be. 34. But this argument underrates the position that the act alleged involves a disciplinary rule of Madhya Bharat Government Servants' Conduct Rule No. 21. It is difficult to say that the rule does not involve a provision of a disciplinary character. Nor is it possible to contend that, if the transgression of this rule is taken by an authority as the plank for basing his order of removal there is no violation of the requirement under Art. 311(2), Constitution of India in case no opportunity is given to him for showing cause against that action. It, therefore, follows that Art. 311(2), Constitution of India will come into play and the petitioner is entitled to protection. 35. No doubt it will be open for the authority concerned to afford him an opportunity to show cause against the allegation that he is a member of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh which is alleged to be a political party. It will also be open to take up the position that the allegation is withdrawn or is being not (sic) as a ground for his removal. 36. It will also be open to take up the position that the allegation is withdrawn or is being not (sic) as a ground for his removal. 36. It is then open for them to terminate his service in accordance with rules for the termination of services of persons in temporary employment of the State, e.g., by giving one month's notice. 37. As the matter at present stands the order passed by the Collector referred to in his letter No. 486-C/52 dated 12-6-1952 is contrary to Art. 311(2) Constitution of India. It is therefore hereby quashed. 38. The petitioner will have his costs from the Government. Rs. 50/- shall be taxed as Counsel's fees. 39. SAMVATSAR, J. :- I agree. Petition allowed.