JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner was a temporary Government servant working as an Inspector, Grade II in the Balasore. Mayurbhanj Major Settlement. On 2-1-1967 the Settlement Officer passed the following order: Shri Basudev Barik, Inspector, Grade II...is discharged from service with effect from the date of issue of this order not to be re-employed in any other settlement. The Petitioner's case is that this order amounts to a penalty and there being no enquiry under Article 311 the Constitution, the order is liable to be quashed. No counter has been filed in this case. The constitutional position must therefore be examined on the facts as alleged in the application. 2. Position of law is well settled that the service of a temporary Government servant can be terminated in accordance with the conditions of employment without holding an enquiry under Article 311 unless some stigma is inflicted in the order of discharge. If any stigma is inflicted, it amounts to a punishment and a proceeding under Article 311 of the Constitution is mandatory. The short question in this application for consideration is whether the impugned order directing that the Petitioner is not to be re-employed in any other settlement amounts to a punishment. On this point there can hardly be any controversy. The order expressly puts a ban on future employment of the Petitioner. Under Article 311(1) of the Constitution, there shall be equality of opportunity for an citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. When the ban is imposed, the chance of getting future employment is fettered and the Petitioner would not get equal opportunity with other competing candidates in respect of any future employment. Such a ban can therefore be imposed only if the Petitioner had been given reasonable opportunity in a proceeding under Article 311 of the Constitution to defend himself. Admittedly, no such proceeding was initiated in this case. Consequently the ban imposed amounts to a punishment as it affects the future chance of employment of the Petitioner. The order is contrary to the clear direction given in Article 311. We would accordingly quash this order. 3. The aforesaid view is fully supported by a decision reported in Krishan Chander Nayar Vs. The Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation and Others. Consequently the ban imposed amounts to a punishment as it affects the future chance of employment of the Petitioner. The order is contrary to the clear direction given in Article 311. We would accordingly quash this order. 3. The aforesaid view is fully supported by a decision reported in Krishan Chander Nayar Vs. The Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation and Others. There of course the matter was canvassed not at the initial stage challenging the validity of the order, but at a subsequent stage when in fact the delinquent there made an application for employment and he was refused on account of the ban so imposed without holding an enquiry under Article 311. The principle however directly applies to the facts of this case, as would appear from the discussion in paragraph 4 of that decision. 4. On the aforesaid analysis, the impugned order is contrary to law and is accordingly quashed. 5. In the result, the application succeeds. We issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to treat the Petitioner as being in service with effect from 2-1-1967. The writ application is allowed with costs. Hearing fee of Rs. 100/- (one hundred). R.N. Misra, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Allowed