JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - The petitioner who was employed as Orderly in the month of March, 1987 has challenged the order of termination of his services dated 181088 mainly on the grounds that he was not given an opportunity to show cause against the order of termination and the order is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for the reason that the persons junior to him have been retained in service whose work and conduct were not better than the petitioner. The impugned order contained in annexure1 annexed to the petition is not a simple order of termination of his services passed under the U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975, but the same has been camouflaged as such. 2. In the counter affidavit it has been averred that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary government servant on 2421987 and he joined as such on 24th February, 1987. It was vehemently denied that his work during the period of service was satisfactory. He was in the habit of absconding from duty without applying for leave as a result of which the Work suffered. On 23687 he was informed that he had been absent from duty with effect from 18687 to 23687 without obtaining proper leave. He was called upon to explain his conduct within three days otherwise action would be taken against him in accordance with Rules. On 20887 he was again informed that he has been in the habit of absconding from duty for a week or ten days without obtaining any permission. It was mentioned in that letter that in the month of August, 1987 he had been absent from duty with effect from 12887. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had sent a letter in which it was stated that he remained ill during this period but the said letter was not annexed with any medical certification which showed that he had not been ill but willfully had been avoiding to join the office. He was called upon to reply within a week as to why he should not be treated absent with effect from 12887 and treating him absent his salary be not deducted. It was further mentioned that if his conduct remained as such then his services would be terminated. He was called upon to reply within a week as to why he should not be treated absent with effect from 12887 and treating him absent his salary be not deducted. It was further mentioned that if his conduct remained as such then his services would be terminated. On March 185 1988, an office memo was again issued to the petitioner indicating that on 17388 he had preferred an application mentioning that he was suffering from tooth ache then why he did not submit any application. He was called upon to explain as to why he did not submit his application for leave on 14th and preferred an application dated 14388 on 17388, In case no suitable explanation would be forthcoming with three days it would be presumed that he had nothing to say and further action would be taken against him. On 21388 the petitioner submitted an application stating that due to severe tooth ache he could not prefer an application on 14th & prayed that he may be granted leave with effect from 14388 but sic 17388. He also assured that he would not repeat such a mistake in future. On 25388 the petitioner was again informed by an office memo that his explanation was not found satisfactory. It was mentioned that even previously he had been committing such mistakes. He was warned that if he would repeat such a mistake, severe action would be taken against him. A copy of the said warning was placed in his personal file. On 61088, Stenographer to the Joint Director, Administration (Abhiyojan), U.P., Lucknow addressed a letter to the Deputy Director, Abhiyojan U.P. Lucknow in which it was mentioned that the petitioner had not been presenting himself at his residence to perform his duties with effect from 51088. On the enquiries made from the office it transpired that no leave application had been received in the office. He had been absenting from 51088 without any information. Upon this letter the Deputy Director (Head Office) made a remark that no application from the petitioner had been received in the office. On 101088 the Deputy Director, Abhiyojan (Head Office) U.P. Lucknow, directed the Office Superintendent to open a file and take necessary action. He had been absenting from 51088 without any information. Upon this letter the Deputy Director (Head Office) made a remark that no application from the petitioner had been received in the office. On 101088 the Deputy Director, Abhiyojan (Head Office) U.P. Lucknow, directed the Office Superintendent to open a file and take necessary action. It has been further averred that in the year 1987 the petitioner was given an adverse entry to the effect that he had been in the habit of absenting himself from duty but his integrity was certified. Ultimately, on 181088 his services were terminated. 3. The petitioner had averred in his writ petition as well as in the rejoinder affidavit that in the year 198788 his work was appreciated and he was given an Award on 15388. In reply to the allegations contained in the counter affidavit to the effect that the action against him was taken as his conduct after 15388 was not upto the mark. The petitioner submitted in the rejoinder affidavit that the adverse entries were never communicated to him. The letter which was addressed to the Deputy Director by the Stenographer to the Joint Director dated 61088 was not communicated to him. A copy of the adverse entry and warning issued against him were not furnished to him and the same could not be relied upon. It was further submitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the charge that he absented from duty but he was not given reasonable opportunity to explain his conduct. The impugned order of termination of his services is actually not a simple order of termination but the same has been camouflaged as an order of removal from service and the same could not have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. 4. From the admitted facts it is clear that on 23187, 20887 and 18388, the petitioner was served with an office memo in which it was mentioned that he had been absenting from duty without applying for leave. On 21388 the petitioner submitted an explanation but on March 25, 1988, he was issued another memo in which it was mentioned that his explanation was not found satisfactory and he was warned not to repeat such mistakes in future and a copy of the said warning was placed into his personal file. On 21388 the petitioner submitted an explanation but on March 25, 1988, he was issued another memo in which it was mentioned that his explanation was not found satisfactory and he was warned not to repeat such mistakes in future and a copy of the said warning was placed into his personal file. On 61088 Sri Irshad Mohammad, Stenographer to Joint Director Administration (Abhiyojan) U.P. Lucknow addressed a letter to the Deputy Director, Abhiyojan (Head Office) U.P. Lucknow complaining that the petitioner had not turned up to perform his duties at the residence of the officer concerned without obtaining any proper leave. Upon this letter on 101088 the Deputy Director directed the Office Superintendent to open file and take necessary action. Ultimately on 181088 the services of the petitioner were terminated. A perusal of the aforesaid letters which have been annexed to the counter affidavit show that the foundation of the order was to punish the petitioner due to his misconduct. The proximity of the dates and the events prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the opposite parties wanted to get rid of the petitioner as he was in the habit of absenting himself from duty. On 101088 Deputy Director passed an order to open file and take necessary action against the petitioner. As a result of the said order the services of the petitioner were terminated. Such an order of termination cannot be said to be an order of termination simpliciter but the foundation of the said order and the proximity of the event leading to termination of his service showed that the opposite parties wanted to remove the petitioner from service. The order of termination is actually not an order of termination but it has been camouflaged as such and actually it was an order of removal which could not have been passed without compliance of the provisions contained in Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly the order of termination was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, hence the same is hit by Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be sustained. 5. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove the writ petition succeeds. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order of termination of petitioner's services dated 181088 contained in annexure1. 5. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove the writ petition succeeds. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order of termination of petitioner's services dated 181088 contained in annexure1. A writ in the nature of mandamus is also issued directing the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner with all the consequential benefits immediately on the post which he held before the order of termination of his services was passed. However it will be open to the opposite parties to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.