JUDGMENT R. L. Gulati, J. The petitioner was appointed in the Consolidation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh as a Consolidator on February 5, 1960. At the material time he was posted as Consolidator in Mohammadabad Unit in Azamgarh. It appears that some adverse remarks were made against him in the inspection note recorded by R.B. Chaturvedi, Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Azamgarh on February 19, 1968. A copy of the inspection note was sent to the petitioner on April 18, 1968. On April 27, 1968 he was asked to submit his explanation atonce. He submitted his explanation on May 20, 1968. By an order dated May 24, 1968 his services were terminated, be giving him one month's pay in lieu of notice. The petitioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order of termination has been passed against him by way of punishment without affording him an opportunity to defend himself as required by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. This grievance of the petitioner appears to be, fully justified. The order of termination does not contain any reason and purports to have been passed in accordance with the service conditions of the petitioner, he being a temporary, employee. But the attending circumstances and the sequence of events proceeding to the impugned order leave no room for doubt that it was not a termination simpliciter occasioned by departmental exigencies but an order of punishment because of the adverse remarks given to him in the inspection note. The inspection note is a long one but the relevant portion is to the following effect: "I made checking of the entries in respect of Sri Jagdish Prasad, consolidator from the month of November, 1967 (November 16, 1967 to November 21, 1967). In this diary the consolidator has shown four days with C.O. in connection with the disposal of the cases. When asked to explain the work he has been doing there, he is not able to tell me the work which he has done..... Obviously the consolidator has wasted his time and has done nothing. He has made an entry just to save his skin and is shown that he has utilised the time. When asked to explain the work he has been doing there, he is not able to tell me the work which he has done..... Obviously the consolidator has wasted his time and has done nothing. He has made an entry just to save his skin and is shown that he has utilised the time. In the second fortnight of the month of December, 1967 the consolidator has shown 5 days in his diary that he has been helping the C.O. in disposal of cases. After Dec., 1967 the diary is blank. There is no entry of the day, today work done by the consolidator. . . .". On November 24 and 25, the Consolidator has been engaged in the disposal of P.C.P. applications of village Chandani. From the perusal of the register of village Chandani, I find there were only three applications and none of them has so far been disposed of. There is no statement of the applicant and there is no report of the Consolidation nor is there any endorsement of the A.C.O. Obviously the consolidator has shown Farzi Kargujari without actually doing the work." On the margin of this report the Collector| Deputy Director of Consolidation made the following endorsement: "Take explanation of the Consolidator and A.C.O. both and submit for suitable action. They deserve punishment for this." Sd. D.P. Arya, Collector|D.D.C. 13368." The order of termination has also been passed by Sri Arya, Collector Deputy Director of Consolidation after the petitioner had submitted his explanation. It is thus clear that Sri Arya had made up his mind on the perusal of the Inspection note to punish the petitioner and the impugned order passed by him a few days later obviously is based on his previous comments. Thus the case is clearly of punishment and, as such, it was incumbent upon the respondent to institute a regular enquiry as contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution, after the petitioner had denied the charges. This admittedly has not been done. Indeed, no counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, with the result the averments contained in the writ petition have to be accepted. The petitioner has clearly stated that he was removed from service because of inefficiency and misconduct attributed to him. As the petitioner has been denied the protection contained in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution the impugned order cannot be upheld. The petitioner has clearly stated that he was removed from service because of inefficiency and misconduct attributed to him. As the petitioner has been denied the protection contained in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution the impugned order cannot be upheld. The case is completely covered by the following observations of the Supreme Court made in paragraph 12 in the case of State of U. P. v. Sughar Singh A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 438: "It is well recognised that very often the motive of a particular order of the Government and the language and the terms of the order itself are not in harmony. In many cases Government take action under the terms of a contract of employment or under the specific service conditions for the purpose of terminating the services or reducing the rank of an officer, the real motive or inducing factor which influence, the Government to take action is different and is connected with some disqualification or inefficiency of the officer. In other words, Government while pretending to act in terms of the contract of service or service rules in reality wants to get rid of the officer concerned or to reduce him to a lower rank by way of punishment for his misconduct or inefficiency or disqualification." The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bombay v. Abraham A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 794 has been noticed by the Supreme Court in this judgment and has been relied upon. For the reasons, stated above the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated May 24, 1968, May 27, 1970 and May 25, 1971 are quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner Ext. still in service and to pay him the emoluments to which he is entitled. The petitioner is entitled to costs.