JUDGMENT This writ application has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the order incorporated in Annexure 1 be quashed. By the said order, passed on the 16th May, 1967, the Managing Director, Bihar State Warehousing Corporation, Patna., discharged the petitioner from service on account of his unsatisfactory service, after payment of one month's pay in lieu of due notice. The order stated that this had been done under Regulation 12(1) of the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had been appointed on the 24th January, 1962 as peon cum picker cum choukidar in the Warehousing Corporation and a copy of the letter received by him for his appointment has been given as Annexure 2. It is stated that the petitioner bad joined the post on the 1st February. 1952, and on fulfilment of the requirements mentioned in Annexure 2, he had been posted at Samastipur. vide letter dated the 7th February, 1962. A copy of this letter bas been given as Annexure 3. It is stated that the scale of pay of the petitioner was increased from time to time and finally, on the 7th February, 1967 it was increased to Rs. 72/per month. A copy of the letter of communication to the petitioner has been given as Annexure 4. According to the petitioner, suddenly he received the impugned communication intimating that he had been discharged from service. According to the petitioner, he had never been given any opportunity of giving any explanation and it is stated that so far as the petitioner knows, his service record was quite good. It appears that the petitioner had filed an appeal on the 5th June, 1967 to the Chairman, opposite party no. 2, but no order has been passed on it as yet. According to the petitioner, he had sent reminders on various occasions in 1967, 1968 and also in 1969 and having obtained no redress this writ application had to be filed. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Corporation and in substance, it is stated in this counter-affidavit that the petitioner had been discharged from service as he was only a temporary employee of the Corporation whose service was terminable on one month's notice. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Corporation and in substance, it is stated in this counter-affidavit that the petitioner had been discharged from service as he was only a temporary employee of the Corporation whose service was terminable on one month's notice. Reference is also made in this counter-affidavit to the fact that the petitioner's conduct was under some suspicion when he was posted at Lakhisarai Warehouse. By way of reply to the counter-affidavit the petitioner has reiterated that it is false to Bay that he was only a temporary servant in the Corporation. 4. From Annexure 2 it does not appear that the petitioner had been appointed in any post temporarily, No document has been produced on behalf of contesting opposite parties no. 2 and 3 to show that the petitioner was a temporary employee of the Corporation, although the counter-affidavit states that the facts stated therein were derived from the records of the Department maintained in due course. Moreover, Regulation 12 (1), mentioned above, did not apply at all as it contemplated termination of service by notice or pay, of an employee, who was on probation Regulation 12 (1) reads thus :- “12. Termination of Service: (1) The service of an employee of any class who, is on probation, may be terminated at any time by giving him one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. Provided that such notice shall not be necessary in the case of a temporary employee of Class III whose service is terminable without such notice by the terms and conditions of his appointment," If the petitioner was a temporary employee, the terms and conditions of his appointment should have been brought on the record. Annexure 1 reads as if the petitioner was being discharged as an employee on probation, whereas the counter-affidavit states that the petitioner was a temporary employee of the Corporation. On the materials on record, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner wall such a temporary employee that he could be discharged from service by giving one month's pay in lieu of due notice. On the materials on record, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner wall such a temporary employee that he could be discharged from service by giving one month's pay in lieu of due notice. Provision of appeal is to be found in Regulation No. 25 against an Older imposing any penalty specified in Regulation No. 21 and probably, that is why the petitioner had tiled his appeal on the 5th June, 1967 and it is curious that whether the appeal was competent or not, no order was passed thereupon. Several reminders, mentioned in Paragraph 11 of the writ application, have also gone in vain. The counter-affidavit has made no reference to the statements made in the writ application that so far as the petitioner knows his service record was good and satisfactory. Therefore, it is a fit case in which the order of discharge passed on the 16th May, 1967 should be quashed. The order incorporated in Annexure 1 is, therefore, quashed and the petitioner most be reinstated in service as if he had not been discharged at all. He will be entitled to all the benefits as if he had continued in service till now. The writ application is, therefore, allowed; but, under the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs. Application allowed