Judgment S. P. Sinha, B. S. Sinha, JJ. 1. The petitioner, who on being appointed as a Cade Sub-Inspector of Police, was directed to join the Police training College under the charge of Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Training) cum-Principal, Hazaribagh, Respondent no.4. During the course of his training, the petitioner received the order contained in Annexure 1 by which he has been removed from Service as Cadet Sub-Inspector of Police. He preferred an appeal against the said removal to the Inspector-General of police Bihar, Patna, Respondent No.2, but the same was rejected and so also his further appeal to the State Government, Respondent No.1, The orders passed by the respective authorities are contained in Annexure 1, 2 and 3. By this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders contained in these Annexures, viz. , 1, 2 and. 2. The petitioner is said to have been absent for forty-four days from his training without taking permission for doing So. Besides, the petitioner is said to be not fit for the responsibility of a member of the Police department. According to the petitioner, however, his absence was not unauthorised and he has tried to explain in his petition as to how the absence was not so, in their counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated that a Cadet while on training can be absent from training for no reason other than injury received in training or on duty such as a fall during the course of learning riding or an accident in the playing field. According to the respondents, the petitioner was really absent in an unauthorised manner and since strict discipline is required to be observed for such a job with which the petitioner had been entrusted, he could not be retained in service. 3. The short argument made on behalf of the petitioner is that his removal from service had been made after attaching a stigma to his career and, therefore, it was incumbent, on the authorities to follow the procedure prescribed for such action in Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It has been stated that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing against the charges on which he has been removed. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that in terms of the appointment-letter as contained in Annexure 5, the petitioners services could be terminated on grounds, inter alia, of indiscipline. It has been stated that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing against the charges on which he has been removed. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that in terms of the appointment-letter as contained in Annexure 5, the petitioners services could be terminated on grounds, inter alia, of indiscipline. Absenting from training according to learned counsal for the respondents, was a clear case of such a nature and, therefore, the order contained in annexure 1 was valid and proper and so also the orders contained in annexures 2 and 3. They could not, therefore, be quashed. 5. It is true that in terms of the Appoinment letter as contained in annexure 5, he could be removed from service as Cadet Sub-Inspector or police for various reasons, one of them being on the ground of indiscipline The question, however, in the instant case is not whether the ground on which the Petitioner has been removed is valid or invalid, true or false, but the question is that he should have been afforded a reasonable opportunity of stating his case when he was being removed on such a ground which attached a stigma to his career. So far as this ground is concerned, it cannot be gainsaid that whenever a Government servant, be he on probation or be he in a permanent employment, is removed from service on a ground which attaches a stigma to his career, the law requires that he must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain his case to the authorities concerned, In the case of The Inspector of Post Officers, Alleppy north V/s. Rangnathan Prabhu (1979 Labour and Industrial Cases 265) a Full bench of the Kerala High Court has expressed the view that even if it be a case of a temporary civil servant, if it is termination as punishment for misconduct, his case would attract Article 311 of the Constitution. It is rule of natural justice as well that if a person is being removed from civil service on certain allegations which amount to a stigma in his career, he must be given a reasonable opportunity of explaining his case. In the instant case, the authorities have not granted any such opportunity to the petitioner although he has been removed from service on grounds which do effect his career adversely. In the instant case, the authorities have not granted any such opportunity to the petitioner although he has been removed from service on grounds which do effect his career adversely. We are, therefore, quash the order contained in Annexure 1 and, as corollary the rests in Annexure 2 and 3. It is, however, made clear that the authorities concerned may pass such orders as they deem fit against the petitioner but only after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard on the charges against him. 6. The application is Allowed but, in the circumstances, without costs.