JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---This second appeal by the original plaintiff, Murgendra Pirappa Dhere, arises under the following facts and circumstances. 2. The Plaintiff was in the employment as a Live-Stock Supervisor of Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant No. 2") i.e. Director of Animal Husbandry, State of Maharashtra, Poona-1 and Respondent No. 1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant No. 1"). He was posted by defendant No. 2 at the Artificial Insemination Sub-Centre, Dhavali. The plaintiff had put in about nine years of service when his services came to be abruptly terminated by an order dated 12th October, 1971 passed by defendant No. 2. The order reads as under :--- "Shri M.P. Dhere L.S i/c MISC Dhavali is informed that his service is no longer required by this Department with effect from 19-11-1971. Sd. Shamrao Jinturkar Director of Animal Husbandry M.S. Poona." 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 602 of 1972 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Poona challenging his wrongful termination of service and claiming reinstatement with consequential relief in the matter of emoluments. The learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Poona decreed the plaintiff's suit by his judgment and order dated 22nd February, 1977 and declared that the defendant No. 2's letter dated 12th October, 1971 by which the plaintiff's services were terminated was illegal, improper, null and void and also inoperative and that the plaintiff continued in the services of the defendants as a Live-Stock Supervisor and was entitled to all the pay and allowances from the date of the termination of his services and he was further entitled to all the benefits for the intervening period as also all the pay and allowances upto the date of his reinstatement. It was further ordered that the defendants should pay Rs. 1036/- to the plaintiff towards the arrears of salary from 19-11-1971 to 19-4-1972 and the cost of the suit. 4. This judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge were challenged in an appeal by the respondents-defendants. The learned III Extra Assistant Judge, Poona by his judgment and order dated 12th April, 1979 passed in Civil Appeal No. 423 of 1977 allowed the said appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with no order as to costs. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present appeal. 5. The learned III Extra Assistant Judge, Poona by his judgment and order dated 12th April, 1979 passed in Civil Appeal No. 423 of 1977 allowed the said appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with no order as to costs. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present appeal. 5. The only substantial question of law which arises in this matter is whether the plaintiff's services could have been terminated without holding a domestic enquiry against him for the alleged misconduct in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution abruptly, arbitrarily and capriciously further violating the provisions of Articles 16 and 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Now, from the order of termination passed by defendant No. 2 it is clear that no reasons were given as to why the services of the plaintiff were terminated. It is important to note that the plaintiff was in service of the Government for about nine years. His services, therefore, could not have been terminated arbitrarily, capriciously and whimsically by defendant No. 2 without assigning any reason whatsoever as to what led defendant No. 2 to terminate the services of the plaintiff. Action on the part of defendant No. 2 thus was absolutely in violation of the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Defendant No. 2 should have done well to remember that the days of 'hire and fire' had gone long time before he passed such an order. 7. Then it appears from the record that the services of the plaintiff were terminated because he had indulged in the act of loaning out a bag of cattle feed to one V.N. Kulkarni and it also appears that there was some whisper that the plaintiff was not a very efficient Officer. Although the impugned letter of termination of the services of the plaintiff does not disclose this as the grounds of termination of his services one can well read between the lines as to the real cause of the termination of the services of the plaintiff. One has to bear in mind that apart from the order by which the services of the plaintiff were terminated what was the real substance behind passing such an order. One has to bear in mind that apart from the order by which the services of the plaintiff were terminated what was the real substance behind passing such an order. On going through the judgments of the learned trial Judge and that of the lower Appellate Court I am more than convinced that the services of the plaintiff were terminated on account of these two alleged misconducts. In that case the services of the plaintiff could have been terminated without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no persons shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he had been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. 8. Regard being had to all the facts and circumstances of this case. I am of the opinion that the law point involved in this appeal is fully covered by the law enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in case of (The Manager Govt. Branch Press and another v. D.B. Belliappa)1. 1979 Lab.I.C. 146. 9. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court are bad in law and have got to be set aside. Accordingly, his judgment and order dated 12th April, 1979 in Civil Appeal No. 423 of 1977 are set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Poona on 22nd February, 1977 in Regular Civil Suit No. 602 of 1972 are restored. Appeal is accordingly allowed with costs throughout. Appeal allowed. -----