This is a Writ Petition filed by Shri Pran Gopal Saha, an Ex-Amin in the Tribal Welfare Department Tripura. under Article 226 read with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari or any; other appropriate Writ for quashing the notice, dated 17-2-1961, of Shri L. B. Thansa. the then District Magistrate and Collector, Tripura. terminating his ser­vices under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) •with effect from the date of expiry of one calendar month from the date of service of the order on him and the sub­sequent order dated 29-3-1961 of actual termination of his service In pursuance of the notice. 2. The petitioner was appointed tem­porarily by an order, dated 17-2-1956, of Shri M. Ramunny, the then District Ma­gistrate and Collector, Tripura, for a short period upto 29-2-1956 on the scale of Rs. 55-3-118-4-130/- together with the Usual allowances as admissible in Tri­pura on the condition that his service was liable to be terminated at any time without any notice or assigning any rea­sons. His order of appointment was also made subject to his being found fit on medical examination and verification of his character and antecedents. Vide Ext. A(l). He continued to be in service. Af­ter a lapse of 5 years he was served with a notice, dated 17-2-1961, signed by Shri L. B. Thanga, the then Additional Dis­trict Magistrate and Collecter, Tripura, under Rule 5 of the Rules, that his ser­vice would be terminated with effect from the date of expiry of one calendar month from the date of service of the notice on him. Vide Ext. A(4). In pur­suance of the said notice the Sub-Divi­sional Officer, Dharmanagar, under whom the petitioner was then working as Amin, Tribal Welfare Section, Dharmanagar, re­leased him from duty with effect from the afternoon of 29-3-1961. Vide Ext. A(5). The petitioner filed an appeal be­fore the second respondent Chief Com­missioner against the order of termina­tion of his service, without any success, Vide Exts. A(6), A(8) and A(9). The peti­tioner thereupon issued a registered no­tice of demand to the Chief Secretary, Tripura Administration and also the first respondent District Magistrate and Col­lector threatening to file a Writ Petition. If he was not reinstated. Vide Ext. A(7). But, as he was not reinstated, he filed the present Writ Petition. 3. A(6), A(8) and A(9). The peti­tioner thereupon issued a registered no­tice of demand to the Chief Secretary, Tripura Administration and also the first respondent District Magistrate and Col­lector threatening to file a Writ Petition. If he was not reinstated. Vide Ext. A(7). But, as he was not reinstated, he filed the present Writ Petition. 3. The Central Government framed the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules of 1949 (under Section 241 (7) of the Govt. of India Act of 1935). The petitioner, who was appointed tem­porarily and whose services were liable to be terminated without any notice or any reasons, did not acquire the status of a quasi permanent Government servant Within the meaning of R. 3 of the afore­said Rules, though he was in continuous Government service for more than 3 years. A Government servant would be deemed to be In quasi-permanent service under the said rule, provided, firstly, he is in continuous Government service for more than 3 years and secondly, if the appoint­ing authority, being satisfied as to his suitability in respect of age, qualification, work and character for employment in a quasi-permanent capacity, has issued a declaration to that effect in accordance with such instructions as the President may issue from time to time. But, in the case of the petitioner no such decla­ration was issued. So he remained to be purely a temporary Government ser­vant. 4. In the Writ Petition three grounds were taken by the petitioner impugn­ing the orders of termination of his ser­vice. The first ground is that he was appointed by Shri M. Ramunny, the then District Magistrate and Collector, but that his service was terminated by the Additional District Magistrate and Col­lector, an authority subordinate to the Ap­pointing Authority and that, therefore the order is in violation of Art. 311 (1) of the Constitution of India. The second ground mentioned in the Writ Petition is that no notice was given to him and no en­quiry was made as required by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and that, therefore, the order of termination of his service is illegal. But, when the matter came up for arguments the peti­tioner's learned Counsel did not rely (rightly) on the above two provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. For, the petitioner was neither "dismiss­ed" nor "removed from service" nor "re­duced in rank" by way of punishment. But, when the matter came up for arguments the peti­tioner's learned Counsel did not rely (rightly) on the above two provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. For, the petitioner was neither "dismiss­ed" nor "removed from service" nor "re­duced in rank" by way of punishment. Clause (1) of Article 311 of the Constitu­tion of India comes into play only when there is "dismissal" or "removal" of a Government servant from service, while clause (2) of Article 311 comes into play when there is "dismissal" or "removal" or "reduction in rank" of a Government servant and both the clauses will apply only when such an order is passed by way of punishment. This position of law is also clear from a number of rulings. Vide the well-known Dhingra's case in Parshotam Lai Dhingra v. Union of In­dia, AIR 1958 SC 36 , Bhagwat Saran Sri-vastava v. Collector and District Magis­trate. Jaunpur, AIR 1961 All 284 , J. S. Varma v. State of U. P., AIR 1962 All 471 and a decision of this Court in Prafulla Chandra Bhowmik v. Union Terri­tory of Tripura, AIR 1963 Tri 38. 5. The only point (which was the third ground in the Writ Petition) that Was urged by the petitioner's Counsel and which arises for determination is whe­ther the notice of termination of service (vide Ext. A(4) dated 17-2-1961) signed by Shri L. B. Thanga, Additional Dis­trict Magistrate and Collector, Tripura in a valid notice under Rule 5 of the Rules which could validly terminate the tem­porary service of the petitioner. Rule 5, which is relevant for the purpose of the present case, runs as follows:- "5. (a) The service of a temporary Government servant, who is not in quasi-permanent service, shall be liable to ter­mination at any time by notice in writ­ing given either by the Government ser­vant to the Appointing Authority, or by the Appointing Authority to the Govern­ment servant, (b) The period of such notice shall be one month unless otherwise agreed to by the Government and by the Govern­ment servant, Provided that the service of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month or any agreed longer period. Provided further that the Compensa­tory (City) and House Rent allowances, where admissible, shall be payable on the expiry of the notice period and after it is certified by the competent authority that the Government servant continued to reside during the period of notice at the station where he was last employed, not­withstanding the fact that he was not expected to return to duty at that sta­tion." Sub-rule (a), thus, contemplates that the notice in writing, which has to be given to the Government servant, should be given by the Appointing Authority. In the present case, the first respondent [District Magistrate was the appointing authority. So, evidently, the original of Ext. A (4) notice by itself is not a valid one, because it was not given by the District Magistrate. But, it was given by the Additional Dis­trict Magistrate. However, the office note file Ext. B(2) shows that the order of termination of service of the petitioner was passed by the then District Magis­trate Shri H. S. Butalia. Ext. B(2) is a continuous note-sheet. An office note was put up on 15-2-1961 that the petitioner entered service on 22-2-1956, that he was still temporary and that if desired, Rule 5 might be applied in his case. There is another office note dated 16-2-1961 that the "Additional District Magistrate" might kindly see the office note mentioned above. Then, there is a short order of Shri H. S. Butalia, District Magistrate and Collector dated 16-2-1961 "apply". The notice of termination of service was drafted on 17-2-1961 and the signature of the Additional District Magistrate was ob­tained in the office copy. So, in fact, the notice of termination of service was issu­ed and signed by Shri H. S. Butalia, the then District Magistrate, while copy of the order served on the petitioner was signed by the Additional District Magis­trate. The contention of the petitioner's Counsel that the original of Ext. A (4) does not mention that Shri L. B. Thanga signed the notice on behalf of or for ShrJ H. S. Butalia is correct. But, the origi­nal notice in the note-file of the office shows that as a matter of fact the order of termination of service of the petitioner was passed and initialed by Shri H. S, Butalia. So, this is only a clerical mis­take, which cannot invalidate the notice issued under Rule 5 (a). 6. But, the origi­nal notice in the note-file of the office shows that as a matter of fact the order of termination of service of the petitioner was passed and initialed by Shri H. S, Butalia. So, this is only a clerical mis­take, which cannot invalidate the notice issued under Rule 5 (a). 6. The learned Counsel for the res­pondents drew my attention to the fol­lowing decisions arising under Art. 311(1) of the Constitution of India. In AIR 1961 All 284 it was held that, if the services of a temporary employee are terminated not as punishment but under the con­tract, then his removal by an authority subordinate to the Appointing Authority cannot be questioned. In AIR 1962 All 471 a proposal for termination of service together with the draft order was put up for approval before the competent au­thority. That authority wrote the word "seen" on the proposal. It was held that the word "seen" indicated approval of the proposal of the competent authority for issuing the order of termination of service and that there was no violation of the provisions of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India. These two de­cisions arose under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India. They cannot di­rectly apply to the facts of the present case, because Rule 5 (a) lays down that the notice shall be given in writing by the Appointing Authority. But, the facts of this case show that the actual notice was signed and given by the Appointing Authority, while a copy of it was issued in the usual routine by the Additional District Magistrate. Though the decision in AIR 1963 Tri 38 of this Court has no direct bearing on this point, it throws some light on it. In that case a Govern­ment servant was appointed by the Chief Commissioner of Tripura temporarily. But, under Rule 5 his appointment was terminated not by the Chief Commis­sioner but by the Director of the Depart­ment, in which the Government servant was employed. It was held that the Di­rector of the Department, if he was the Appointing Authority for Class III em­ployees on the relevant date and if the Government servant was a Class III em­ployee, could validly terminate the ser­vices of the employee, even though the employee was appointed by the Chief Commissioner. As Ext. It was held that the Di­rector of the Department, if he was the Appointing Authority for Class III em­ployees on the relevant date and if the Government servant was a Class III em­ployee, could validly terminate the ser­vices of the employee, even though the employee was appointed by the Chief Commissioner. As Ext. B(2) shows that the actual order of termination of ser­vice of the petitioner under Rule 5 of the Rules was passed by Shri H. S. Buta-lia, the Appointing Authority, the fact that the original of Ext. A (4) does not bear his signature, but that it bears the signature of the Additional District Ma­gistrate and Collector does not, in mv opinion, invalidate the notice issued to the petitioner under the circumstances of this case. 7. The learned Counsel for the peti­tioner stated that a copy of Ext. B(2) was filed very late in the Court on 25-9-1967 and that no reliance should be placed on it. Though he did not expressly state that Ext. B(2) was got up for the pur­pose of the present Writ Petition, he faintly suggested the same. But, that Ext. B(2) note file did exist before the Writ Petition was filed is clear from para­graphs 19 and 24 of the written state­ment filed by the respondents. In para­graph 19 the respondents stated that the order of applying Rule 5 of the Rules for terminating the service of the peti­tioner was passed by Shri H. S. Butalia, the then District Magistrate and Collec­tor, Tripura and that his order was com­municated under the signature of Shri L. B. Thanga as per the direction of Shri H. S. Butalia. In paragraph 24 the res­pondents clearly mentioned the existence of the note-sheet. In that paragraph the respondents alleged that the order of ter­mination of service was passed by Shri H. S. Butalia and that his order was com­municated under the signature of Shri L. B. Thanga, as per the direction in the note-sheet. Ext. B (2) contains several initials signatures and handwritings of a number of officers bearing several dates. There is absolutely no doubt about the genuineness of the note-sheet and it can­not be said that it was got up by the respondents to substantiate their defence in the Writ Petition. 8. Ext. B (2) contains several initials signatures and handwritings of a number of officers bearing several dates. There is absolutely no doubt about the genuineness of the note-sheet and it can­not be said that it was got up by the respondents to substantiate their defence in the Writ Petition. 8. It was finally contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the affidavit, filed on behalf of the res­pondents, was not sworn to either by Shri H. S. Butalia or Shri L. B. Thanga and that much reliance cannot be placed upon it. He relied on Mofnuddin v. Divi­sional Mechanical Engineer, N. R. Rly. AIR 1959 All 795 , where it was held that the tendency among some Government Officials to depute their clerks or pairokars to swear to affidavits in regard to the facts, which are within their own knowledge, is to be deprecated, that the practice is contrary to law and improper and that it smells of discourtesy to the High Court. But, in this case the affida­vit was sworn to by Shri Naresh Chan­dra, Cultural Research Officer, in charge of Tribal Welfare Section. So he is a competent officer to swear to the affida­vit in the present case. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs. Petition dismissed.