ORDER K.N. Singh, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the quashing of the order dated 28-7-1974 issued by the Director, Harijan and Samaj Kalyan, Uttar Pradesh terminating the petitioner's services as Junior clerk. 2. The petitioner was employed as a Junior Clerk in the office of the District Harijan and Samaj Kalyan Adhikari, Etah, on 28-1-72 in temporary capacity. The terms and conditions of his services were regulated by the Government notification dated 30-1-1953. It appears that the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer was not happy with the petitioner's working. On 2-3-1974 the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer directed the petitioner to submit his explanation in regard to the loss of certain papers and file with a direction that if the petitioner failed to submit his explanation proceedings would be taken against him for removing official records. In his explanation the petitioner alleged that on account of certain other reasons the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer was personally annoyed with him and as such false grounds were created to harass him. On 3-5-1974 the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer again required the petitioner to submit his explanation with regard to certain complaints made to him, The petitioner submitted his explanation and denied the allegations. On 13-5-1974 the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer again called for an explanation from the petitioner as to why he remained on leave. The petitioner submitted his explanation saying that his son was seriously ill and in that connection he had to leave for Agra immediately and for that purpose he had applied for two days leave and as the leave was due and the condition of his son was deteriorating, he had to leave all of a sudden. 3. The District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer sent a demi official letter to the appointing Authority viz., Director of Harijan and Social Welfare, Uttar Pradesh. In his letter he stated that the petitioner's work and conduct was not satisfactory and in support of his contention he referred to five different allegations against the petitioner which alleged that the papers which are sent to the petitioner for taking further steps are generally kept under the files and no action is taken. Secondly, it was alleged that certain note-sheets of files had been removed by the petitioner. Secondly, it was alleged that certain note-sheets of files had been removed by the petitioner. Thirdly it was alleged that the petitioner has not been behaving in a proper manner with students belonging to scheduled caste, Fourthly, it was alleged that the petitioner had gone away from office without obtaining prior sanction of leave. Lastly it was alleged that the petitioner had not been submitting monthly statement regarding expenditure. It was further alleged that the petitioner had been given warning but that had no effect on him. The explanations were called for and the same were not found satisfactory. The District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer recommended that the petitioner's services may be terminated and some other person may be posted. 4. Another demi official letter was again sent by the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer, Etah to the Director of Harijan and Social Welfare, U.P. In that letter also he made similar allegations against the petitioner and recommended that the petitioner's services may be terminated. On 30-6-1974 the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer, Etah, lodged a first information report with the local police at Etah under Section 380 I.P.C. which alleged that the petitioner surreptitiously entered office after office hours and removed certain files and papers. The police was requested to register case and take a suitable action against the petitioner. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner and investigation followed. But a final report was submitted by the local police on 15-8-1974 on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner could not be substantiated for want of evidence. Meanwhile the Director by his order dated 28-7-1974 terminated the petitioner's services. The petitioner thereupon approached this Court for the quashing of the said order. 5. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order of termination is in effect an order of punishment. The attending circumstances in which the order was passed clearly show that the impugned order was not a simple order of termination, instead it is an order of punishment. Since the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of defence as contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution the order of termination is rendered void. The attending circumstances in which the order was passed clearly show that the impugned order was not a simple order of termination, instead it is an order of punishment. Since the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of defence as contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution the order of termination is rendered void. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents urged that the impugned order is innocuous in nature, it casts no stigma against the petitioner and since the petitioner was a temporary Government servant, it was always open to the appointing authority to terminate his services in accordance to the terms and conditions contained in the notification dated 30-1-1953. It is further urged that the impugned order was passed on an overall assessment of petitioner's work and conduct and the order was not passed on account of any specific fault assigned to him. 6. It is true that the services of a temporary Government servant can be terminated without assigning any reasons in accordance to the terms and conditions contained in the Government Notification dated 30-1-1953. The petitioner was no doubt a temporary Government servant and his services could be terminated either by giving him one month's notice or by offering him one month's salary in lieu of the period of notice, It is further well settled that the motive operating in the mind of the punishing authority in terminating the services of the temporary Government servant is not relevant and the order cannot be characterised to be an order of punishment merely on account of the fact that the complaints against the petitioner may be the motive for passing the order of termination. It is further no longer in dispute that the form in which the order of termination is issued is not final. It is always open to the Court to look to the attending circumstances to ascertain the question as to whether the order is an innocuous one as it purported to be or it is an order of punishment having regard to the attending circumstances which may have preceded or have followed the order. The question, however, which arises for consideration is as to whether the circumstances prevailing in the present case show that the impugned order was passed as a measure of punishment or it is a simple order of termination. 7. The question, however, which arises for consideration is as to whether the circumstances prevailing in the present case show that the impugned order was passed as a measure of punishment or it is a simple order of termination. 7. In order to determine this question it is necessary to refer to the cases cited at the Bar. In State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra, AIR 1971 SC 1011 = (1971 Lab IC 724), the Supreme Court observed :- "It may be that an order which is innocuous on the face and does not contain any imputation of misconduct is a circumstance or a piece of evidence for finding whether it was made by way of punishment or administrative routine. But the entirety of circumstances preceding or attendant on the impugned order must be examined and the overriding test will always be whether the misconduct is a mere motive or is the very foundation of the order." In view of the above declaration of law it is necessary to examine the entirety of the circumstances preceding or attending to the impugned order. As already noted the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer had called for three explanations from the petitioner and warned him that if he failed to give satisfactory explanation proceedings would be taken against him. The allegations for which the petitioner's explanation was obtained were serious enough, and one of which related to the removal of Government papers and files. In his two demi official letters addressed to the Director of Harijan and Social Welfare, the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer had further made allegations against the petitioner which again contained an allegation that the petitioner had removed certain papers and files from his office. In addition to that he lodged a first information report with the local police on 30-6-1974 which contained an allegation of theft against the petitioner and made out an offence under Section 380 I.P.C. The order of termination was passed on 28-7-1974 i.e. during the period the criminal case was under investigation against the petitioner. Applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Shiva Bhikslmk Mishra's case it is clear that the entirety of circumstances preceding and attending to the impugned order clearly indicated that the order was founded on account of the aforesaid allegations against the petitioner. Applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Shiva Bhikslmk Mishra's case it is clear that the entirety of circumstances preceding and attending to the impugned order clearly indicated that the order was founded on account of the aforesaid allegations against the petitioner. The order though innocuous on its face but having regard to the aforesaid circumstances it is difficult to accept the contention that the order is an order of termination simpliciter. The petitioner's case is more akin to the case of Shiva Bhikshuk Misra than any other case. I am therefore of the opinion that the impugned order is not an order of termination simpliciter, instead it is an order of punishment. Since no opportunity ;as contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution was afforded to the petitioner the order is rendered void. 8. The learned standing counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench case of this Court in Collector and District Magistrate Varanasi v. Mataru Ram, (1975) 1 All LR 130 = (1975 Lab IC 1090). In that case it was held that if the Government finds that the work of a temporary servant is unsatisfactory either generally or in any particular aspect, it is entitled to terminate his services and such termination cannot amount to punishment. The services of a temporary Government servant can be terminated legitimately even for a fault, whether the fault indicates inefficiency, unsatisfactory work, misconduct or negligence. The mere fact that before passing an order of termination an opportunity is given by way of notice or warning to the Government servant to remove the shortcomings, will not make the order one of punishment. 9. The facts available in the case of Mataru Ram, 1975 Lab IC 1090 (All) were quite different than those available in the present case, In Mataru Ram's case certain target was fixed which was required to be achieved. Mataru Ram, who was employed as Health Assistant in the Family Planning Department failed to achieve that target and warning was issued asking him to achieve the target failing which action was threatened to be taken against him. Mataru Ram failed to achieve the target, thereupon an order of termination was passed. Mataru Ram, who was employed as Health Assistant in the Family Planning Department failed to achieve that target and warning was issued asking him to achieve the target failing which action was threatened to be taken against him. Mataru Ram failed to achieve the target, thereupon an order of termination was passed. On behalf of Mataru Ram it was contended that the order of termination was in substance an order of punishment because a target had been fixed and since he failed to achieve the target, warning was issued and consequently his services were terminated. The Division Bench held that the fixing of target was only to achieve efficiency and the warning was issued only for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the Government servant to remove his shortcomings. The issue of warnings could not convert the order of termination into an order of punishment. The facts of the present case are quite different than those of Mataru Ram's case. As already discussed specific allegations were made against the petitioner and explanation was called for and thereafter recommendation was made to the Director for termination of his services making specific allegations against the petitioner which were of serious nature and finally a first information report was lodged against the petitioner with the allegation that he had committed theft in the Government office. In view of these facts the view expressed by the Division Bench in Mataru Ram's case is not applicable to the present case. In my opinion the facts in the present case are more akin to the facts of Shiva Bhikshuk Misra's case, 1971 Lab IC 724) (SC). 10. The learned standing Counsel further urged that the two demi official letters sent by the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer were for the purpose of apprising the Director about the assessment of petitioner's work. It contained no allegations against him and therefore these two demi official letters cannot be taken into account. Further it was urged that the fact that a first information report had been lodged by the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer and that a criminal case under Section 380 I.P.C. was under investigation against the petitioner, was not brought to the notice of the Director and the impugned order of termination was not passed on account of the allegations made against the petitioner in the first information report. There is, however, no such averment in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Director, In the counter affidavit it was nowhere stated that the information about the first information report with the police against the petitioner for theft of Government files and the investigation of the case was not present before the Director and that he did not take these facts into account in passing the impugned order. In the circumstances I find no merit in the respondents' contention. 11. In the result I allow the petition and quash the order of the Director of Harijan and Social Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, dated 28-7-1974 terminating the petitioners services. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.