Short Note : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner seeking the relief of quashing the impugned notice of termination of his services (Annexure P/12), of direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service and pay all his dues accrued to him during the period between the date of his discharge and the date on which he is reinstated. 2. The facts, briefly, stated are these: The petitioner was appointed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure R/1, dated 17-8-64 with effect from 4-8-64 as Turner Mecbanic in M.T. Section of the respondent No.2, was promoted as Lance Naik on 1-8-65, then as Naik on 1-7-66 and then as Head Constable on 8-10-67 on which post he was working till 6-8-70 when his services were allegedly terminated vide the aforesaid impugned order. On 4-11-69, the petitioner proceeded on leave upto 3-12-69 which he got extended upto 23rd of January, 1970. During this period, some correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 commencing with petitioner's application (Petitioner's Annexure P-1 and respondent's Annexure R/3, dated 13-11-69) wherein he made certain grievances against his superior officers and requested respondent No.1 to grant him a no objection certificate so as to enable him to seek a suitable job in any other Department. After his having resumed his duties on 24-2-70 when he appeared before respondent No.1, he was warned for laying allegations against senior officers and a strict watch and report about his work was also ordered by respondent No.1. 3. Vide Annexure P/3, dated 29th May, 1970 which is at page 15 of the paper book, the petitioner was charged as under and a departmental enquiry under rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was ordered against him. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the departmental enquiry was subsequently dropped and the services of the petitioner were terminated under rule 5 (1) (a) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. 4. Held: From the various decisions of the Supreme Court, it is discernible that a Court is competent to determine whether an order which ex facie is an order of termination is in reality a cloak for an order of dismissal or removal by way of punishment. In other words, the form of the order is not conclusive. 4. Held: From the various decisions of the Supreme Court, it is discernible that a Court is competent to determine whether an order which ex facie is an order of termination is in reality a cloak for an order of dismissal or removal by way of punishment. In other words, the form of the order is not conclusive. In this respect, we can do no better than quoting the dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in S.R. Tewari v. District Board, Agra, AIR 1964 SC 1680 . 5. The dropping of the enquiry simpliciter without exonerating the petitioner of the charges that were levelled against him and immediately issuing the impugned order of termination indicates that the respondents intended to impose the punishment of dismissal or removal in the guise of a simple order of termination. This conclusion gets reinforced from the remark in the discharge certificate (Annexure P/13) "Service Conduct-Unsatisfactory". It clearly speaks out the intendment and purpose of the respondents on which the impugned order was founded. This is a clear stigma. This circumstance attending on the passing of the impugned order knocks out the bottom of the respondents case that the impugned order was innocuous order of termination simpliciter. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the discharge certificate was given on the demand by the petitioner, that this remark was mentioned because of a specific column in the form of Discharge Certificate and that the word 'dismissed' was struck out, do not merit to be accepted. The column in the Discharge Certificate Annexure P/13 is "Conduct & Character while with the ITB Police". It is against this column that the remark is written: "Character satisfactory, Service Conduct-Unsatisfactory". Had every thing been bonafide, there was no occasion to write "Service Conduct Unsatisfactory". The only meaning, especially in the context of the facts of the instant case it conveys is that of misconduct. 6. We are of the firm opinion that the impugned order (Annexure P/12) was passed merely to camouflage the order of dismissal or removal and it did attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution; which having not been complied with, the order can not be sustained. AIR 1970 SC 158 , AIR 1974 SC 2263 , AIR 1958 SC 658 and 1975 (30) FLR 370 SC distinguished. AIR 1970 SC 158 , AIR 1974 SC 2263 , AIR 1958 SC 658 and 1975 (30) FLR 370 SC distinguished. 1974 (1) SLR 435 & AIR 1964 SC 1680 , relied on. Petition allowed.