DAVE, C.J.—This is a writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order of the Deputy Director of Education, Bikaner dated 14.9.62, terminating the petitioners services, on the ground that it is hit by Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner, who is a citizen of India, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at the Madho Middle School, Bikaner, by the Inspector of Schools, Sikar on 14.11.58. On 28.11.58, the Deputy Director of Education, Bikaner transferred him to Government Basic S. T. C. Training School, Churu, as a Lower Division Clerk in the grade of Rs. 60-130. On 23.4.60, he was suspended under R. 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, by the Inspector of Schools, Churu, since he was prosecuted in a criminal case for offences under secs. 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. On 21.8.62, he was re-instated by the Deputy Director of Education, Bikaner, on the ground that he was honourably acquitted by Magistrate First Class, Churu on 31.3.62. It was also ordered by him that the petitioner would be permitted to draw his pay and allowances admissible according to R. 54(2) of Rajasthan Services Rules and his salary would be charged from the post where he was suspended, that is, from the office of the Inspector of Schools, Churu for the period with effect from 3.4.60, and for the intervening period he would be treated on duty for all purposes. Strangely enough the same officer (Deputy Director of Education, Bikaner) passed another order on 11.9.62 to the following effect: "On further scrutiny, it has been found that the services of Shri Harish Chandra Gupta, temporary L.D.C., Government Basic S.T.C., Training School, Sujangarh were terminated on account of his misbehaviour and bad works. The orders of reinstatement passed by this office vide No. EDD/BK/EB/3/62/6/9293, dated 21.3.62 is hereby cancelled." 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the last order dated 14.9.62 was passed in violation of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India, because the petitioner was punished by termination of his services on account of the alleged misbehaviour and had works on his part without giving him reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action which the Deputy Director of Education proposed to take against him. It has been argued that no charge-sheet or statement of allegations was given to the petitioner according to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, and he was not given any opportunity to give his explanation, nor was he given any opportunity of being heard by the disciplinary authority. 4. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent in this Court. The previous order dated 1.2.61, to which there was a reference in Ex-6, has also not been produced before us. In the case of Purshotam Lal Dhingra (1) it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that : — "Just as Art. 310 in terms makes no distinction between permanent or temporary members of the services or between persons holding permanent or temporary posts in the matter of their tenure being dependant upon the pleasure of the President of the Governor, as does Art. 311 in our view makes no distinction between the two classes, both of which are, therefore, within its protections and the decisions holding the contrary view cannot be supported as correct." 5. It is crystal clear from the said observation that Art. 311 of the Constitution as much protects a temporary civil servant as a permanent one. The impugned order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 14.9.62 shows that the petitioners services were terminated on account of alleged "misbehaviour and bad work" on his part. Under the circumstances, it was incumbent upon the authorities concerned to give him a reasonable opportunity of clearing away the charges against him and since the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution were not followed, the said order cannot be maintained. It is high time that the authorities removing or dismissing or reducing in rank a member of civil service of State should know that the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India must be followed in spirit and letter before such an action is taken. It should be appreciated that the failure on their part to follow the provisions of this Article, on the one hand, causes untold hardships on a civil servant and, on the other hand, it involves the State in financial implications. It should be appreciated that the failure on their part to follow the provisions of this Article, on the one hand, causes untold hardships on a civil servant and, on the other hand, it involves the State in financial implications. When the Deputy Director had himself re-instated the petitioner on the ground that he was honourably acquitted by a court of law, he should not have changed that order and terminated the services of the petitioner in less than one months period of time without an inquiry according to law. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has very candidly conceded that he does not find himself in a position to defend the impugned order. 6. The writ application, is therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Education Bikaner, dated 14.9.62 is hereby quashed. The petitioner will get Rs. 50/- as costs in this Court.