JUDGMENT V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The petitioner who is a qualified Veterinary Doctor was appointed provisionally as a Veterinary Surgeon in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State Government on the 6th of March 1972. Pursuant to the said appointment he was put in charge of the Veterinary Dispensary in Thiruvampady at Calicut. The said dispensary was a newly sanctioned unit which was temporarily housed in two rooms behind a row of shops and the petitioner began functioning there with effect from 15-3-1972. According to the allegations contained in the writ petition the two rooms in which the dispensary was located were totally unsuited for the said purpose since there was hardly sufficient space therein even for accommodating the essential items of furniture and on this fact being brought by him to the notice of the District Veterinary Officer the petitioner had been directed to find out a suitable alternate building. It is also alleged by the petitioner that similar instructions had been given to him by the Director of Animal Husbandry also when the petitioner met the latter at Ernakulam. The petitioner states that acting on the strength of those instructions given to him by the superior officers he found out a suitable building having four rooms and a fairly big compound and intimated the District Veterinary Officer about the same by a letter dated 28-4-1972. Ex. P1 is said to be a true copy of the said letter. Apparently acting in anticipation of approval by the superior authorities the petitioner made preliminary arrangements to shift the dispensary to the newly proposed premises and informed the District Veterinary Officer about the same as per the letter Ex. P2 dated 1-5-1972. The dispensary itself, as already stated, was a newly sanctioned unit and it would appear that the formal inauguration of the unit by the Minister for Agriculture and Labour (3rd respondent) stood fixed for the 5th May 1972 and the said function was held at the premises where the dispensary had originally started functioning. P2 dated 1-5-1972. The dispensary itself, as already stated, was a newly sanctioned unit and it would appear that the formal inauguration of the unit by the Minister for Agriculture and Labour (3rd respondent) stood fixed for the 5th May 1972 and the said function was held at the premises where the dispensary had originally started functioning. It is alleged by the petitioner that even at the inauguration function the speakers stressed the necessity for shifting the dispensary to a more convenient building and after the meeting was over the District Veterinary Officer ] inspected the new premises proposed by the petitioner and orally instructed the petitioner to shift the dispensary to the new building after obtaining a consent letter from the owner of the building. It is said that on the basis of those instructions the petitioner shifted the dispensary to the new premises and started functioning there from 7th May 1972. Ex. P3 is said to be the copy of a letter sent by the petitioner to the District Veterinary Officer on 8th May 1972 intimating the latter about the factum of the shifting of the dispensary. 2. The further allegation in the writ petition is that on 6th May 1972 certain persons who were dissatisfied with the manner in which the inaugural function had been organised and conducted, held a public meeting in the vicinity of the I new premises selected by the petitioner for shifting the dispensary and at the said meeting they are said to have gone through a mock inauguration ceremony. According to the petitioner he had absolutely no connection whatever with the said meeting and knew about it only from newspaper reports. But, none the less, it is alleged that the 3rd respondent who appears to have felt insulted by the holding of the second meeting became greatly displeased with the petitioner on account of a wrong and baseless impression formed by him that the petitioner was instrumental in arranging the second meeting. It is alleged that acting on the aforesaid erroneous impression the 3rd respondent exerted pressure on the 2nd respondent the Joint Director of Animal Husbandry to take immediate action against the petitioner. It is alleged that acting on the aforesaid erroneous impression the 3rd respondent exerted pressure on the 2nd respondent the Joint Director of Animal Husbandry to take immediate action against the petitioner. Thereupon, it is said, the 2nd respondent visited the petitioner's dispensary on the 12th May 1972 along with the Administrative Officer and the District Veterinary Officer and questioned the petitioner about the circumstances of the transfer of the dispensary to the new building and the petitioner was directed by the communication Ex. P4 issued to him by the District Veterinary Officer on the same date to shift the dispensary back to the old premises. Thereafter, on 16-5-1972 the 2nd respondent passed the order Ex. P6 terminating the petitioner's services with immediate effect declaring also that the petitioner "should not be allowed to continue on duty in public service in public interest". The said order was served on the petitioner on 22nd May 1972. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner submitted before the Minister for Agriculture and Labour the representation Ex. P7 which he presented before the Minister in person at Trivandrum. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Minister told him on receiving the said representation that he was not prepared to modify the order Ex. P6. Hence the petitioner has come up to this Court with this writ petition seeking to quash Ex. P6. 3. Before proceeding to discuss the case further it is necessary to extract the full text of the impugned order. "It is noticed that Sri K. P. Subash, Provisional V. S., V. D. Thiruvampady has committed a grave irregularity by shifting the Veterinary dispensary on 7-5-1972 from the building which was inaugurated by the Hon-Minister for Agriculture and Labour on 5-1-1972, to another building without sanction of the competent authority. The Director of Animal Husbandry incharge who conducted an on the spot enquiry on 12-5-1972 is personally convinced that Sri K. P. Subash, Provisional V. S., V. D. Thiruvampady, has acted against the departmental rules. Sri. Subash in his written statement has also admitted that he had shifted the Veterinary dispensary building on his own responsibility. In the view of the seriousness of the charges proved against Sri K. P. Subash it is decided that he should not be allowed to continue on duty in Public Service in public interest. Sri. Subash in his written statement has also admitted that he had shifted the Veterinary dispensary building on his own responsibility. In the view of the seriousness of the charges proved against Sri K. P. Subash it is decided that he should not be allowed to continue on duty in Public Service in public interest. In the above circumstances the service of Sri K. P. Subash in the grade of V. S. on provisional basis is terminated with immediate effect". The petitioner's allegation that he had not been given any memo of charges nor an opportunity to go through an enquiry as prescribed in R.15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) R.1960 is not denied on the side of the respondents. The only procedure that appears to have been adopted by the 2nd respondent is to meet the petitioner at the dispensary on the 12th of May 1972 and to question him orally and on basis of the said so called enquiry he has proceeded to pass the order Ex. P6 terminating the petitioner's service on the ground that serious charges had been proved against the petitioner. 4. It may be that the petitioner is only a temporary Government servant who is liable to be discharged from service as and when the department finds that his services are no longer required. But even such an employee is certainly entitled to the protection of Art.311(2) of the Constitution if he is sought to be sent out of Government service by way of punishment for alleged misconduct. That the impugned order Ex. P6 effects a termination of the petitioner's service by way of punishment cannot admit of doubt. Besides holding the petitioner guilty of certain charges the impugned order also brands him as a person who should not be allowed to continue on duty in public service in public interest a declaration which is certainly bound to have adverse repercussions in the matter of the petitioner's future prospects for entertainment into the service of the State Government or the Central Government. Even apart from the provisions of Art.311 of the Constitution it is a basic requirement of natural justice that an action involving such serious consequences should not have been taken against a Government servant without affording him a full and fair opportunity of proving his innocence and showing cause against the proposed action. Even apart from the provisions of Art.311 of the Constitution it is a basic requirement of natural justice that an action involving such serious consequences should not have been taken against a Government servant without affording him a full and fair opportunity of proving his innocence and showing cause against the proposed action. Under Art.311(2) an opportunity has to be given to the Government servant concerned to establish his innocence by holding an oral enquiry in his presence and the accused officer is also entitled to a further opportunity at the stage of imposition of the punishment to show cause both against the findings that might have been entered against him and also against the quantum of the proposed punishment. The protection of Art.311(2) of the Constitution is available to temporary Government servants also when they are proceeded against on charges of misconduct and are sought to be dismissed or removed from service and it has to be implemented both in ' letter as well as in spirit. Any order passed in violation thereof has necessarily to be struck down by this Court. Ex. P6 has been passed in gross violation of the provisions of Art.311(2) and also in contravention of the principles of natural justice and hence it cannot be sustained in law. 5. The Government Pleader brought to my notice that subsequent to the institution of this writ petition the State Government has passed an order G.O. Rt. 2012/72/AD Dated 24th August 1972 setting aside Ex. P6. A copy of the said order has been filed into Court today along with an additional counter affidavit and it has been marked as Ex. R1. Ordinarily if the Government itself has redressed the grievance of the writ petitioner by setting aside any illegal order that might have been passed against him by a subordinate authority this Court will merely record the said fact and treat the writ petition as having become infructuous. In this case, however, I do not find it possible to adopt that course because it is seen from Ex. R1 that while purporting to set aside the order Ex. P6 passed by the 2nd respondent the government have in more than one place expressed in Ex. R1 the view that the charges in question have been proved against the petitioner. R1 that while purporting to set aside the order Ex. P6 passed by the 2nd respondent the government have in more than one place expressed in Ex. R1 the view that the charges in question have been proved against the petitioner. If it was the Government's intention to set right the gross procedural irregularity committed by the 2nd respondent what should have been properly done by it was merely to point out the said irregularity and set aside the order passed by the subordinate authority without expressing any opinion on the merits of the charges framed against the accused officer particularly when no enquiry whatever as contemplated under the rules had been held against him and no opportunity had been afforded to him to establish his innocence. In such circumstances it is totally unfair to the accused officer if the ultimate authority in the executive set up namely, the State Government, is to prejudge his case and declare him to be guilty of the charges even while setting aside the order passed by the Subordinate Authority which is found to be totally invalid on account of the fact that on enquiry at all had been conducted as contemplated under the service rules. The effect of such an order is to reduce the further proceedings before the subordinate authority to a mere farce thereby depriving the officer not merely of his chances of establishing his innocence before the said authority, but also of the benefit of an effective right of appeal which he is normally entitled to under the rules for challenging the decision of the subordinate authority if it happens to be adverse to him. Unfortunately that is exactly what has been done under Ex. R1 which runs in the following terms:-- "In the order first cited, the Director of Animal Husbandry has terminated the provisional services of Sri K. P. Subash Veterinary Surgeon, Thiruvampady on certain charges proved against him. In the representation second cited the petitioner has refuted the charges levelled against him in the order. The petitioner has also filed an O.P. in the Kerala High Court O.P. No. 2953 of 1972 questioning the validity of the order passed by the Director of Animal Husbandry. In the said O.P. it has been agreed to consider the representation filed by the petitioner as an appeal against the orders of the Director of Animal Husbandry. The petitioner has also filed an O.P. in the Kerala High Court O.P. No. 2953 of 1972 questioning the validity of the order passed by the Director of Animal Husbandry. In the said O.P. it has been agreed to consider the representation filed by the petitioner as an appeal against the orders of the Director of Animal Husbandry. Accordingly Government have examined the case. It has been found that the order has been passed by the Director of Animal Husbandry on the basis of certain charges proved against him, but no opportunity is seen to have been given to the petitioner to defend himself against the charges. The action of the Director of Animal Husbandry is therefore not in order. The order first cited, issued by the Director of Animal Husbandry is therefore set aside. 6. The Director of Animal Husbandry will take necessary further action in the matter". As is evident from a reading of the order it clearly proceeds on the basis that the charges framed against the petitioner have been fully proved against him even though the actual order of termination is vitiated by the procedural irregularity in not giving an opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself against those charges. It may be that such a consequence was not intended by the Government. But that however is what flows from the plain language used in Ex. R1. If it is only a case of mere careless wording of a Government order, it is highly necessary that greater care should be taken in drafting orders of this kind having serious repercussions on the service of a Government servant. 7. The 3rd respondent the Minister for Agriculture and Labour has filed a counter affidavit refuting the petitioner's allegations attributing mala fides to him. The 3rd respondent has sworn that he had not put any pressure on the 2nd respondent to take action against the petitioner. I accept the statement of the Minister and the petitioner's contention alleging mala fides is rejected. 8. As already indicated, having regard to the manner in which Ex. R1 is worded it is not possible for this Court to treat the said order as having redressed the petitioner's grievance which has arisen to him from out of the illegal termination of his services effected as per Ex. P6. This Court is therefore put to the necessity of declaring Ex. R1 is worded it is not possible for this Court to treat the said order as having redressed the petitioner's grievance which has arisen to him from out of the illegal termination of his services effected as per Ex. P6. This Court is therefore put to the necessity of declaring Ex. P6 as illegal and void. The said order is quashed and there will be a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith into service. The Original petition is allowed as above. The parties will bear their respective costs.