Short Note : 1. The petitioner submitted an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certorari to quash the termination order dated 6-9-1974 passed by the General Manager, M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal. The petitioner was employed as a Lower Division Clerk in the year 1961 by the Madhya Bharat Roadways. In 1964, he was promoted as Store-keeper Grade II. He earned a second promotion as a Store-keeper Grade I, from 17-6-1966. Till the order of termination, the petitioner had completed 13 years of service. The grievance of the petitioner was that he was not the person authorised to make purchases from the local dealers nor did he make any purchase. He has just a store-keeper whose duty it was to receive the purchased goods and store them. The purchase was to be made by the Depot Manager assisted by the purchase clerk. The impugned order, therefore had no basis whatsoever. The order of termination attached stigma of misconduct and unless a charge-sheet were given and the petitioner afforded an opportunity to explain his position the order would be bad. Held : The impugned order in the present case perse attaches stigma. The discharge is ordered for reasons of misconduct on grounds which were capable of being explained. The servant had no opportunity to explain that he was not the person who had made purchase, across the counters from local dealers. The question is, did the management act objectively and in good faith in terminating the services of the petitioner, or was it an action taken on grounds which did not in fact exist? If exercise of power is colourable and mala fide, the order has to be struck down. The difficulty, the counsel for the Corporation argued was in what type of cases the Corporation could act under Standing Order 11 if they wanted to terminate services without taking recourse to Standing Order 12. It is not for the Court to say when discharge order simplicitor could be passed. But instances like cadre strength being reduced, a particular branch being abolished and retrenchment in consequence has to be ordered or over all inefficiency during the period of trial, could be some of them. It is not for the Court to say when discharge order simplicitor could be passed. But instances like cadre strength being reduced, a particular branch being abolished and retrenchment in consequence has to be ordered or over all inefficiency during the period of trial, could be some of them. But once discharge order is passed for reasons of misconduct, the impugned action has to be tested judicially and the test would be whether or not rules of natural justice were, followed or not, the servant was given an opportunity to explain his conduct. The present case is of second category. The order of discharge had penal consequences and was passed without following the procedure laid down in Standing Order 12. The petitioner shall be reinstated with back wages. L. Michael and another v. M/s. Jhonson Pumps Ltd. AIR 1975 S.C. 661 relied on, Delhi Transport Undertaking v. Balbir Saran Goel, AIR 1971 S.C. 836 , Air India Corporation, Bombay v. V.A. Rabello and another, AIR 1972 S.C. 1343 distinguished. Petition allowed.