JUDGMENT Gyanendra Kumar, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated May 8, 1967 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant and refusing to quash the order of the appellant's termination of service, dated May, 18, 1966. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that by means of an order dated November 23, 1954 (Annexure I to the writ petition) the appellant was appointed as a temporary judicial Officer at Aligarh. In the aforesaid letter it was specifically mentioned that the appellant's appointment was liable to termination at any time on one month's notice of discharge of either side or one month's pay in lieu of notice by Government in accordance with Government's Notification No. 230/-B-1953 dated January 30, 1953 (Annexure II to the writ petition), a copy whereof was enclosed with the appointment letter. It would be advisable at the outset, to quote the material contents of Annexure II "In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of U. P. is pleased to make the following general rule regulating the termination of services of temporary Government servants: (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any existing rules and orders on the subject, the service of a Government servant in temporary service shall he liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either have the Government servant to the appointing authority, or by the appointing authority to the Government servant. (2) ................................. (3) This rule shall take immediate effect and shall apply to all persons who are appointed hereafter in a civil post in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh and who are under the rule-making control of the Governor, but who do not hold a lien on any permanent Government post. (4) In this rule, 'temporary service' means officiating and substantive service in a temporary post and officiating service in a permanent post, under the U. P. Government." 3. To our regret we find that the writ petition does not contain precise and chronological narration of facts, which had to he gathered from the record of the case, personal file of the appellant and statements made at the Bar. To our regret we find that the writ petition does not contain precise and chronological narration of facts, which had to he gathered from the record of the case, personal file of the appellant and statements made at the Bar. The Chief standing Counsel did not claim prevailed with regard to the personal file of the appellant maintained in the Secretary at and had placed the same before the learned single Judge. He has acted likewise in this Court It appeals that after being transferred from place to place, the appellant was posted as judicial Officer at Banda till the year 1961. In 1962 he was posted as Judicial Officer Kisia, in the district of Deoria. In the General Election of 1962 Shri Raj Mangal Pandy a Congress committee', was pitched against Shri Genda Singh, a P. S P. candidate, in Padraun East Assembly Constituency of District Deoria, of which the appellant was the returning Officer. Shri Raj Mangal Pandey wanted his name to be written at the top of bigot papers, in order to have the advantage of the mentality of illiterate and unconcerned voters to mirk the name of the card date shown at the top of the ballot papers. But the appellant did not accede to that request as it was contrary to the instructions issued by the" Election Commission, which required the names of candidates to he written in alphabetical order. 4. The election result was declared on 28-2-1962 in which the P. S. P. candidate Shri Genda Singh succeeded. When Sri Raj Mangal Pandey lost the election he put the entire blame for his defeat on the appellant because of his refusal to accede to the above request of Shri Raj Mangal Pander. It is said that Shri Raj Mangal Pandey made a complaint to the above effect to the Chief Minister, Shri C. B. Gupta when he visited Padrauna after the election. The result was that immediately on his return to Lucknow Shri C. B Gupta made a confidential report to the Chief Secretary on 9-4 1962 that the appellant had openly helped the P. S. P. candidate; aga not the Congress candidate hence suitable action be taken against him. The Chief Secretary forwarded the above note to Shri C. P. Gupta, Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, for enquiry in the matter. The Chief Secretary forwarded the above note to Shri C. P. Gupta, Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, for enquiry in the matter. Accordingly, by his secret and registered D% dated 1.15.1962 (Annexure IV) the Commissioner asked for the appellant's explanation regarding the arrangement of names of various candidates on ballot papers and other election charges. It would be proper to quote the aforesaid G. O. in extenso: "Secret and Registered COMMISSIONER: GORAKHPUR DIVISION D O.No. 201/St-37. GORAKHPUR. May 11, 1962. My dear Sexena, Some complaints have reached me about your conduct during the election from the Padrauna East Assembly Constituency of which you were Returning Officer. It has been alleged that whereas according to the rules, the names of the candidates had to he arranged in the ballot papers in Hindi alphabetical order with the surname first and 'Singh' was obviously the Surname of the P. S P. candidate, Shri Gonda Singh, You placed him above Sri Raj Mangal Pandey in an effort to help him get some preference from the illiterate voters. It has also been reported that while You moved about the constituency in the jeep supplied to you for election arrangements, you took Sri Ram Shakal Tewari, a Vakil of Kasia who was inimical to one of the candidates and had carried on election propaganda against him. It is also complained that on or about the polling day you visited the farm of the Serai Sugar Factory and asked the Manager and other labourers of the farm to vote for a particular candidate. 2. Will you kindly let me have your explanation, in duplicate of the allegations mentioned above within a week of the receipt of this letter, and also send me whatever papers you may have concerning the arrangement of the names of the voters ought to be candidates) on the ballot paper. The receipt of this letter may please be acknowledged. Yours Sincerely (C. P. GUPTA)." It is said that on receipt of the appellant's explanation, the Commissioner found it impossible to take any action against him and exonerated the appellant. However, in deference to the wishes of the Chief Minister and in order to please him, the Commissioner sago mots made another secret complaint to the Chief Secretary. Yours Sincerely (C. P. GUPTA)." It is said that on receipt of the appellant's explanation, the Commissioner found it impossible to take any action against him and exonerated the appellant. However, in deference to the wishes of the Chief Minister and in order to please him, the Commissioner sago mots made another secret complaint to the Chief Secretary. vide D. O letter dated 19/20-7-1962, bringing three charges against the appellant, recommending that his services be terminated Two of the charges which were ultimately held by the Government to have been proved against him were as under : (a) That in 1961-1962 Shri S. S. Sexena while undertaking a journey from Kasia, district Deoria, to Banda travelled by a longer route and also charged by the same longer route but appended a false certificate that he had travelled by the shortest route. (b) That while making local inspection in a case Shri Saksena committed irregularities and travelled in vehicle provided by private parties. 5. Accordingly, the appellant was served with a notice of termination of his service dated 20-12-1962 without any enquiry or explanation from the appellant. Against this he made a representation. On 14-1-1963 the Minister for Health Shri Mahabir Prasad Srivastava addressed the following note to the Chief Minister : "M. M. There was a talk with D. M. Azamgarh today and in his opinion also the work of Mr. S. S Saksena, J. O. has been quite satisfactory during the last 6 months and there was no complaint against him during this period. All the complaints on which his services are being terminated relate to the period when he., was at Deoria and the proceedings have been exparte, although it was not compulsory to give him notice and take his explanation. In view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the recent case of S Sukhhans Singh (A.I.R. 1962 Sup. (; p 1711) it seems proper that Shri Saksena may be given one more chance by M. M. and in case there is any compliant in future suit able action will be taken against him." On the same date (14-1-1963) the Chief Minister made the following order beneath the note of the Health Minister. (; p 1711) it seems proper that Shri Saksena may be given one more chance by M. M. and in case there is any compliant in future suit able action will be taken against him." On the same date (14-1-1963) the Chief Minister made the following order beneath the note of the Health Minister. ' D. M. Azamgarh was here the other day and I had occasions to discus this case with him He was of the opinion that and in fact he recommended that the services should not be terminated and he should he given a further trial. I also /agree with all that Minister for Health has written. under these circumstances his services need not be terminated Necessary orders may issue immediately. (Sd.) C B. GUPTA, 14-1-63 The result was that the order of termination was withdrawn by the Government on 16-1-1963. The note of the Health Minister clearly said that Shri Saksena may he given one more chance and in case there is any complaint in future, suitable action will he taken against him. The Chief Minister entirely agreed with what the Health Minister had written and directed immediate withdrawal of the order of termination of the appellant's service. All this obviously meant that the old chapter was closed and the earlier conduct of and charges brought against the appellant had been condoned by the Chief Minister and no action was contemplated to he taken in respect of them. It was only envisaged that if there was any complaint in future suitable action would he taken against him. The office note dated 18-1-1969 also said that in view of the orders issued for withdrawing the notice terminating the services of Shri Swami Saran Saksena no further action was required. Nevertheless, Shri R. C. Bhargava Deputy Secretary, on 19-1-1963 wrote a note saving that although the notice terminating the services of the appellant had been withdrawn yet his explanation should he obtained in respect of specific charges which had been brought against him. On or about 20-3-196' the appellant was served with the same charges as were originally brought against him in 1962. The appellant submitted his written statement to the charges. Regarding the first charge, he submitted that factually the route by which the appellant had charged the travelling allowance was the only shortest chargeable route. On or about 20-3-196' the appellant was served with the same charges as were originally brought against him in 1962. The appellant submitted his written statement to the charges. Regarding the first charge, he submitted that factually the route by which the appellant had charged the travelling allowance was the only shortest chargeable route. In respect of the second charge, his case was that the vehicle for making a local inspection was brought by the counsel for the parties upto had shared the expanses equally and that the appellant had not charged any travelling allowance for the same. 6. On 16-5-1963 the public service Commission recommended to the Government for the confirmation of the appellant, or on the basis of his good work and entries upto the year 1963. But the Government deferred his confirmation and on 31-5-1963 wrote to the Public Service. Commission that as departmental proceedings were being taken against the appellant the question of his confirmation will be taken up after the result of the departmental enquiry. The Public Service Commission in its reply dated 2-7-1963 said that it would review its recommendation for the appellant's confirmation after completion of the departmental enquiry, the result of which should he communicated to it. 7. On 21-2-1964 the enquiry was entrusted by the Government to the new Commissioner, Shri S. N. Mitra, I C. S., who after holding a protracted departmental enquiry by his findings .................................... dated 25-11-1964 exonerated the appellant, holding that the charges had not only been not made out against the appellant but were also insignificant. However, the Government did not accept the findings of the Lingering Officer and on 21-12-1964, the Assistant Secretary wrote the following note. "Charges I and III have been proved. These relate to Sri Saxena 's failure to place on file the (note) in respect of the local inspections made by him in connection with certain cases, using a conveyance belonging to a private person in conducting the local inspections and appending false certificate to his T. A. bill. There is, however, reason to believe that Sri Saxena had no ulterior motive in committing the above irregularities. The report of the Enquiry Officer is also a pointer to this conclusion. There is, however, reason to believe that Sri Saxena had no ulterior motive in committing the above irregularities. The report of the Enquiry Officer is also a pointer to this conclusion. As the bona fides of Sri Saxena are not in doubt, it will meet the ends of justice if his conduct is censured and the Following entry is made in his character roll : While posted as Judicila Officer, Kasia district Denria, during the year 1961-62 Sri Swami Saran Saxena failed to discharge his duties properly in correction with the local inspections made by him in certain cases pending in his court and using conveyances belonging to private parties for such inspections. He also appended false certificate to his T. A. bill saving that he had charged the fare by the shortest route although he had under taken the journey by longer route when, in fact, he had charged the fare by the longer route. This conduct of Sri Saxena was most unbecoming an officer of his status and responsibility. Severely warned." In this connection it may be mentioned that Sri Saxena was due to cross his first efficiency bar with effect from November 28. 1962. In view of his unsavoury record of service he was held up at the bar for a period of one year. This period has already passed and Sri Saxena became due to cross the bar from November 28, 1963. The matter was, however, deferred till a decision was taken on the disciplinary proceeding, initiated against him. In view of the 'censure' entry now proposed, there would be no question of permitting him to cross the bar for a year more. The matter can he considered sometime in November 1965. All these measures combined together will give him a good jolt and might put him on the right track " 8. On 22-12-1964 Shri R. Vasudevan, Deputy Sectary wrote a remark at the foot saying "I agree with the Assistant Secretary's' note in toto." This was counter-signed by the Chief Secretary on 23-12-1964. From the above narration it is quite clear that the Government was contemplating both the punishments simultaneously. It was considered that "all these measures combined together will give him a good jolt and might put him on the right track". From the above narration it is quite clear that the Government was contemplating both the punishments simultaneously. It was considered that "all these measures combined together will give him a good jolt and might put him on the right track". As would presently be seen, such a procedure was obviously in contravention of rule 55-B(a) of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 9. Accordingly a censure entry in the character roll of the appellant for the year 1961-62 was made on 30-12-1964, in terms of the above quoted proposal of the Assistant Secretary and the same was communicated to the appellant on 14-1-1965. 10. Meanwhile the appellant appears to have been transferred to Azamgarh. In the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 the A. D. M. (J) Azamgarh, made a strong recommendation for allowing the appellant to cross the first efficiency bar, on account of his good work, conduct and integrity, Early in 1965, the appellant was transferred to Jhansi and it appears that the A. D. M. (J) and District Magistrate Jhansi also recommenced for the appellant's crossing the first efficiency. In reply the District Magistrate, Jhansi received letter No. P. 7249/II-C-884/1965, dated 6-3-1965 from Sahayak Sachiv, U.P. Shasan (Annexure V), a copy whereof was also forwarded to the appellant. The order reads as under : "Subjects-Crossing of first efficiency bar by Sri Swami Saran Saksena, Judicial Officer. I am directed to invite a reference to G. O. No. P. 5669,111-C-224/ 1936, dated April 8, 1964, on the above subject. and to say that the disciplinary proceeding against Sri Swami Saran Siksena, Judicial Officer, now posted in Jhansi District, have since concluded, and the conduct of Sri Saksena was not found to be above board In the above context the Governor has reconsidered the entire question of his crossing the efficiency bar and has come to the conclusion that his record of service taken as a whole does not justify his crossing the efficiency bar at the state of Rs. 490/- in the scale of pay of U.P Judaical Officers' Service The Governor has, therefore, been pleased to order that Sri Saksena shall remain held up at the said efficiency bar till November 28, 1964. 2. 490/- in the scale of pay of U.P Judaical Officers' Service The Governor has, therefore, been pleased to order that Sri Saksena shall remain held up at the said efficiency bar till November 28, 1964. 2. The Governor has further been pleased to order that the work and conduct of the officer taken as a whole having not been found to be upto the mark even after November 28, 1964 he is further held up at the stage of 1st efficiency bar till November 28 1965. 3. His suitability for crossing the said efficiency bar will be reexamined on the expiry of the above period i.e. after November 28, 1965 and the orders of Government will be communicated to you thereafter." 11. From the above facts it is clear that the Government not only made a censure entry to the character roll of the appellant and warned him severely because of alleged failure "to discharge his duties properly in connection with local inspections" and for having "appended it false certificate to his T.A bill" but also refused to allow him to cross the first efficiency bar for a period of three years. i.e., from 28-11-1962 to 28-11-1965, mainly on the ground that the conduct of the appellant "was not found to be above board," These were clear aspersions on the integrity of the appellant and amounted to serious stigma on his moral character and efficiency. The representation made by the appellant against the aforesaid double punishment was summarily rejected by the Government, in spite of the recommendation of the District Magistrate, Jhansi. Unfortunately, the District Magistrate, Jhansi was also condemned by the Chief Secretary, for recommending the case of the appellant to the Government in his note dated 20-5-1965, which runs as under : "I also feel that the D.M. should be pulled up for sending an ill considered and thoughtless report to Government. 12. The reply to the aforesaid letter dated 2-7-1963 received from the Public Service Commission was kept in abey ance, pending the result of the departmental enquiry. It was on 20-5-1965 that the Government wrote to the Public Service Commission that as a result of the departmental enquiry, two of the charges had been proved against the appellant and censure entry made in his character roll. The Government accordingly requested the Commission to review its previous recommendation for confirmation of the appellant. 13. It was on 20-5-1965 that the Government wrote to the Public Service Commission that as a result of the departmental enquiry, two of the charges had been proved against the appellant and censure entry made in his character roll. The Government accordingly requested the Commission to review its previous recommendation for confirmation of the appellant. 13. In its reply dated 9-2-1966, the Public Service Commission, on review of the case in the light of the findings and action taken by the Government in the departmental enquiry, recommended the termination of the appellant's service forthwith, saving that they were of the opinion that the appellant was unfit even to he retained in service, much less to be confirmed That Commission 's letter ended thus : "Therefore in supersession of their recommendation in regard to Sri Saxena communicated to Government in this office letter No. G-33661118. Misc. 62-63, dated May 16, 1963, the Ayog now recommend that his service may be terminated forthwith " 14. In the Year 1966, the .A.D.M (J). Jhansi and the Commissioner Jhansi Division, again recommended for allowing the appellant to cross the efficiency bar, as hi work was found to be the best in the whole of the district However, the Government did not accept the recommendations of the A.D M (J) Jhansi and the Commissioner but accepted the aforementioned . To commendation of the Public Service Commission dated 9 2-1966 Accordingly, the appellant was served with the noticed dated 18-5-1966 (Annexure (VI) saying that his services are and shall stand terminated with effect from the date of service of the notice and that he shall he given one month's pay in lieu of one month's notice of termination in terms of the Notification dated January 30, 1953 (Annexure II) relating to temporary Government servants. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition dated 6 7-1966 before the Lucknow Bench which was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 8-5-1967; hence this appeal 15. Mr. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition dated 6 7-1966 before the Lucknow Bench which was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 8-5-1967; hence this appeal 15. Mr. S.N. Kacker, learned counsel for the appellant mainly pressed the following points before us: "(1) That the impugned older of termination dated 18-5-1966 was really an order of removal of the appellant from service by way of punishment, which was made without granting him an opportunity to show cause against the same and was, therefore, vitiated for breach of Article 311(2) of the Constitution : (2) That the impugned notice-cum-order of termination of the as halts service dated 18-5-1966 stood vitiated on the ground that the Enquiring Officer Shri S.N. Mitra, I. C. S , had exonerated him of all the charges but the Government chose to take a contrary view and terminated the service of the appellant without granting him a fresh opportunity of showing cause : (3) That the appellant was visited with three punishments in succession, viz. censure, withholding of efficiency bar and termination of service, which violated the provisions of rule 55-B(a) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules as well as the principles of justice and fair play. In support of his first contention, Sri Kacler places reliance principally on State of Punjab v. Sukh Raj (A .I.R. 1968 S. C. 1089.. In this ruling the Supreme Court has reviewed various-cases regarding the necessity or otherwise of granting a reasonable opportunity to a civil servant to show cause in terms of the mandatory requirement of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 16 their Lordships laid down certain principles and tests governing such cases, which run as under : "On a conspectus of these cases, the following propositions are clear : 1. The services of a temporary servant or a probationer can be terminated under the rules of his employment and such termination without anything more would not attract the operation of Article 311 of the Constitution. 2. The circumstances proceeding or attendant on the order of termination of service have to be examined in each case, the motive behind it being immaterial. 3. 2. The circumstances proceeding or attendant on the order of termination of service have to be examined in each case, the motive behind it being immaterial. 3. If the order visits the public servant with any evil consequences or casts an aspersion against his character or integrity, it must be considered to be one by way of punishment, no matter he was a mere probationer or a temporary servant. 4. An order of termination of service in unexceptionable form proceeded by an enquiry launched by the superior authorities only to ascertain whether the public servant should be retrained in service, does not attract the operation of Article 311 of the Constitution. 5. If there be a full-scale departmental enquiry envisaged by Article 311 i. e. an Enquiry Officer is appointed, a charge-sheet submitted explanation called for and considered, any order of termination of service made thereafter will attract the operation of the said article " 16. Mr. Kacker argues that propositions Nos. 2, 3, and 5 are particularly attracted to the present case The second proposition makes it abundantly clear that the circumstances preceding the order of termination of service are important for determination of the real nature of the order, viz, whether it is an order simpliciter of termination of service in terms of contract or service Rules, or whether it amounts to removal or dismissal of the Civil servant concerned. In the instant case the proceeding circumstances, which cannot be lost sight of, have already been narrated in the earlier part of the judgment and need not be repeated here. Its perusal would show that right from the beginning of 1962 the authorities concerned were anxious to dispense with the services of the appellant firstly on the charge that in the General Election of 1962 he had openly helped the P S P candidate against the Congress candidate in various ways, so he did not deserve to be retained in service. When the election charges were found to be baseless by the Commissioner of Gorakhpur Division, the latter silo mouse made a secret complaint to the:- Chief Secretary on 19/20/7-1962. bringing three fresh charges against the appellant and recommending that hi: services be terminated. When the election charges were found to be baseless by the Commissioner of Gorakhpur Division, the latter silo mouse made a secret complaint to the:- Chief Secretary on 19/20/7-1962. bringing three fresh charges against the appellant and recommending that hi: services be terminated. Two of the charges, which were held by the Government to have been proved against the appellant were (a) that he had appended a false travelling allowance certificate and (b) that while making local inspections in cases pending before him, he committed the impropriety of travelling in the vehicles provided by private parties The new Commissioner of Gorakhpur Division, Sri S. N. Mitra, I. C. S , after holding a protracted departmental enquiry found the charges to be groundless and, at any rate, insignificant. However the Government did not accept the findings of the Enquiring Officer and recorded a censure entry in the character roll of the appellant and also warned him severely, on the ground that , he failed to discharge his duties properly and also appended a false certificate to his T A. Bill. The crossing of the first efficiency bar by the appellant was also stopped by the Government for three years. In the latter order it was also recorded that the conduct of the appellant 'was not found to be above board'. 17. As far back as 16-5-1963 the Public Service Commission had recommended to the Government for confirmation of the appellant on the basis of his good work and entries earned upto the year 196,3. But the Government deferred his confirmation and wrote back to the Public Service Commission that as departmental proceeding: were being taken against the appellant, the question of his confirmation will be taken up after the result of the departmental enquiry. In the year 1963-64 the A D.M. (j) made a strong recommendation for allowing the appellant to cross the first efficiency bar on account of his good work, conduct and, integrity. Similar recommendation was made by the District Magistrate in 1965. On 20-5-1965 the U.P. Government wrote to the Public Service Commission that as a result of the departmental enquiry. two of the charges had been proved against the pent and censure entry made in his character roll. Similar recommendation was made by the District Magistrate in 1965. On 20-5-1965 the U.P. Government wrote to the Public Service Commission that as a result of the departmental enquiry. two of the charges had been proved against the pent and censure entry made in his character roll. The Government accordingly requested the Commission to review its previous recommendation for confirmation of the appellant In its reply dated 9-2-1963 the Public Service Commission, on review of the case in title light of the findings and action taken by the Government in the departmental enquiry, recommended the termination of the appellant's service forthwith saying that the appellant was unfit even to be retained in service, much less to be confirmed'. 18. For the year 1965-66 the A.D.M. (j).Jhansi and the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, again recommended for allowing the appellant to cross the efficiency bar as his work was found to be the best in the. whole of the district However, the Government did not accept their recommendations but accepted the recommendation of the Public Service Commission dated 9-2-1966. Accordingly, the appellant was served with the impugned notice dated 18-5-1966, saying that his services stood terminated with immediate infect. 19. In an appropriate case the Court has to see the truth and substance of the matter and has to determine whether an order though couched as a simple order of termination, really amounts to removal from evidence. The preceding facts reproduced above clearly show that the impugned order was meant to be an order of removal for fault, particularly when in its communication dated 6.3-1965 the Government cast an aspersion on the conduct of the appellant by saying that he was 'not found to be above hoard' The Government also accepted the recommendation of the Public Service commission dated 9-2-1966 saying that the appellant ,was unfit even to he retained in service, much less to be confirmed' and further recommended that 'his services he terminated forthwith'. It was in the aforesaid preceding circumstances for the so-called order of termination of service dated 18-5-1966 was passed by the Government. In our view, it was nothing but an order of removal of the appellant from service for fault 20. Coming to third test laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court Sukh Raj's case (supra). It was in the aforesaid preceding circumstances for the so-called order of termination of service dated 18-5-1966 was passed by the Government. In our view, it was nothing but an order of removal of the appellant from service for fault 20. Coming to third test laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court Sukh Raj's case (supra). the impugned order of termination obviously - visits the appellant with evil consequences, inasmuch as his 12 years devoted service- was suddenly snapped by the so called order of termination. It is true that the order in question itself does not cast any aspersion on the character or integrity of the appellant, but we have already shown that at least in three communications preceding the order of termination his integrity and character were assailed by saying that his conduct was most unbecoming and was not above board and that he was unfit to he retained in service. Therefore, the consequential order of termination of service must be considered to be one by way of punishment, passed in contravention of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 21. As regard the fifth test laid down by their Lordships, we find that there was a full scale departmental enquiry envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution Shri S.N. Mitra, I.C S , Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, was appointed as the Enquiring Officer, regular charge-sheet was served on the appellant, his explanation was called for and considered by the commissioner who exonerated him of all the charge s, but the Government did not accept the finding of the Enquiring Officer and chose to terminate his services by the order in question. Their Lordships have already laid down that to such a situation the operation of Article 31( 2) of the Constitution till be attracted. It is not denied by the respondent State that after the departmental enquiry the appellant was not given any opportunity of making representation on the proposed penalty of removal from service, which order, as we have found was couched as one of mere termination of service. Such an order, being in defiance of the mandatory provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, has to be struck down. 22. This brings us to the second ground put forward by Dr. Such an order, being in defiance of the mandatory provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, has to be struck down. 22. This brings us to the second ground put forward by Dr. S N. Kacker viz., that the Enquiring Officer Shri S. N. Mitra, I.C.S., had exonerated the appellant of all the charges but the Government chose to take contrary view and terminated the services of the appellant without granting Lima fresh opportunity of showing cause. The factual position is not challenged by the respondent State. In support of this contention Mr. Kacker lies on State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar, A.I.R. 1963 S C. 1612 , paragraph 8 wherein there Lordships observed : "We ought, however, to add that if the dismissing authority differs from the findings recorded in the enquiry report, it is necessary that its provisional conclusions in that behalf should be specified in the second notice. It may be that the report makes findings in favour of the delinquent officer, but the dismissing authority degrees with the said finding in such a case it would obviously be necessary that the dismissing authority should expressly state that it differs from the findings recorded in the enquiry report and then indicate the nature of the action proposed to be taken against the delinquent officer. Without such an express statement in the notice, it would be impossible to issue the notice at all.........In order to give the delinquent officer a reasonable opportunity to show cause under Article 311(2), it is essential that the conclusions provisionally reached by the dismissing authority must. in such cases, be, specified in the notice." 23. Mr. Kacker has also produced before us a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 543 of 1966 (Narayan Misra v. State of Orissa. decided on 21-3-1969. In that case, the appellant, Narayan Misra, had filed a petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of his discharge from service. The Enquiring Officer did acquitted the delinquent officer of two of the charges but the Cone vator of Forests (who was the discharging authority) differed from the findings of the Enquiring Officer but (did not give him an adequate opportunity to explain these charges. The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition holding against the appellant. The Enquiring Officer did acquitted the delinquent officer of two of the charges but the Cone vator of Forests (who was the discharging authority) differed from the findings of the Enquiring Officer but (did not give him an adequate opportunity to explain these charges. The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition holding against the appellant. Hidavatullah, C. J., delivering the judgment of the Bench, observed as under : "Now if the Conservator of Forests intended taking the charges on which he was acquitted into account, it was necessary that the attention of the appellant might to have been drawn to this fact and his explanation if any called for this does not appear to have been done. In other words, the Conservator of Forests used against him the charges of which he was acquitted without warning him that he was going to use them This is against all principles of fair play and natural justice. If the Conservator of Forests wanted to use them, he should have apprised him of his own attitude and given him an adequate opportunity. Since that opportunity was rot given, the order of the Conservator of Forests modified by the State Government cannot be upheld." 24. In the light of the above weighty pronouncements of the Supreme Court, we are afraid, the failure of the State Government to grant an opportunity to the appellant to furnish his explanation and show cause against the proposed drastic action, when it differed from the findings and report of the Commissioner, is fatal to its cause. 25. The last ground put forward on behalf of the appellant also appears to have substance. The Government obviously meant to Punish the appellant when if recorded an entry of censure in the appellant's character roll and also warned him severely. The Government further meant to punish the appellant when it stopped him from crossing even the first efficiency bar for a period of three years. In this case 10th these punishments were imposed on the appellant in quick succession for the same alleged fault. Rule 55-B(a) of The Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules lays down. "55-B(a). Whenever the punishing authority is satisfied that good and sufficient reasons exist for adopting such a course it may impose the penalty of:- (i) censure, or (ii) stoppage at an efficiency-bar. Rule 55-B(a) of The Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules lays down. "55-B(a). Whenever the punishing authority is satisfied that good and sufficient reasons exist for adopting such a course it may impose the penalty of:- (i) censure, or (ii) stoppage at an efficiency-bar. Provided that it shall not be necessary to frame formal charges against Government the servant concerned or to call for his explanation " 26. From the above rule it is quite clear that when the punishing authority had good and sufficient reasons for imposing penalty on the' appellant fee the supposed misconduct, it could impose only one of the penalties of censure or stoppage at an efficiency bar and not both. In the instant case, as observed above, the Government chose to impose both the penalties for the same misconduct alleged on the part of the appellant. Such a course appears to be wholly against the provisions of rule 55. The penalty of censure having already been imposed upon the appellant on 14-1-1965, it was no longer open to the punishing authority to impose the second penalty of stopping the appellant at the first efficiency bar, subsequently on 6-3-1965. The provisos only says that before inflicting one of the above minor penalties on the delinquent officer it shall not be necessary to frame formal charges against him or to call for his explanation. But it does not mean that where formal charges have been framed against the Government servant concerned and/or where his explanation has been called, the punishing authority has a right to impose both the penalties simultaneously or in quick succession. That being so, the subsequent punishment of stoppage of the appellant at the first efficiency bar for a period of three years was wholly illegal and must be struck down. 27. It is note worthy that the Government did not rest content by imposing the two penalties aforesaid but went to the length of imposing yet a third penalty on the appellant, viz. removing him from service under the garb of an order of termination. 28. In the result, we allow the appeal with costs throughout, set aside the judgment and order of the learned single judge and quash the impugned order dated 18-5-1966 terminating the appellant's services. We further quash the G. O. dated 6-3-1965 (Annexure V) stopping the appellant at the first efficiency bar.