D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was employed with respondent M. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. , Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Federation ). He was appointed by order passed on 16-3-1972, temporarily on one month's probationary period to begin with, which is evident from condition No. 7 of the appointment order on record as Annexure 1. ( 2 ) AFTER a long period of more than ten years of service in the federation, by the impugned order of termination simpliciter passed on 23-10-1984 (Annexure-1), his service; wire terminated on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice in terms of Rule 15 of M. P. State Marketing Federation Service Rules (in short 'the Rules') which are statutory in character and framed under Section 55 (1) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1962. ( 3 ) THE petition raises two important questions with regard to the validity of the impugned order of {termination of services of the petitioner. The first is whether the petitioner under the provisions of the rules which govern conditions of his service has attained the status of a permanent servant. The second question is whether the order of termination simpliciter is punitive and is any case arbitrary The decision of these questions depends upon the interpretation of the provisions contained in Rules 11, 12, 15 and 23 of the Rules, a photostat copy of which has been placed on record. This is in Hindi Rule 11 contains mode of appointment by direct recruitment and provides that an employee directly recruited shall ordinarily be appointed on two year probation. Rule 12, which is relevant for the purpose of this petition is regarding confirmation or conferring of status of permanency on an employer It provides that on completion of probationary period if the services of the concerned employee are found suitable, he will be confirmed aganst the post. If however, the services of a temporary employee are not found suitable for confirmation, his probati onary period or temporary appointment can be extended at the discretion of the appointing authority. Rule 15 permits termination of an employee during his probationary period on one month's notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof. The second part of Rule 15 permits termination by notice simpliciter of one or three months or payment of salary in lieu thereof, cfany other permanent or temporary employee. Rule 15 permits termination of an employee during his probationary period on one month's notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof. The second part of Rule 15 permits termination by notice simpliciter of one or three months or payment of salary in lieu thereof, cfany other permanent or temporary employee. Rules 23 to 26 contain various penalties that maybe impased and the procedure of disciplinary action before imposing such penaltes. The rules contemplate issuance of a charge-sheet and holding of an enquiry ( 4 ) HAVING thus examined the scheme of the Rules, the validity of the action of the respondent Federaton has to be judged. The factual background is as under. By order dated 12-7-1984 (Annexure No. 2), the petitioner, was asked to show cause for the various irregularities and acts of misconduct committed by him. One of the misconducts attributed was that he allowed hi;- subordinate to dispose of fertilizer worth Rs. 1,34,358/- in cash and did not promptly deposit the said amount in the accounts of the Federation. The petitioner submitted bis reply to the showcause notice on 24-7 ! 484 (Annexure-3) Thereafter, by the impugned order passed on 23-10-1984, his services were terminated by an order simpliciter on paymem of salary in lieu of notice. In the return submitted by the federation in this petition, the impugned termination is sought to be justified stating that ti:e petitioner was "indifferent towards his duties and was a man of doubtful integrity". It has also been stated in the return that "the Federation purposely did not hold any enquiry against him as in the enquiry if the petitioner had been found guilty, he would have been dismissed. This would h^ve spoiled his future career being a young man. " ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had attained a permanent status having successfully completed probationary period under Rule 12 of the Rules and he could not have been terminated by an order simpliciter under Rule 15. The second submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order of termination is punitive. No enquiry has been held into the alleged misconduct and the or ier, therefore, is bad in law being in violation of the Rules 23 to 26 of the Rules. The second submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order of termination is punitive. No enquiry has been held into the alleged misconduct and the or ier, therefore, is bad in law being in violation of the Rules 23 to 26 of the Rules. ( 6 ) WE have hear t the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the interpretation and effect of the aforesaid service rules. The petitioner, in this case was appointed initially on one year's probationary period. On completion of that prrobationary period in terms of Rule 12 of the Rules, he was neither confirmed nor was his probationary period or temporary appointment extended by by express order of the competent authority. Under Rule 11, normally rne probationary period is stated to be of two years. The petitioner had served the Federation Up to the time of his termination for about twelve years. Readirig Rules 11 and 12 together, we find that the probationer period in no case could be more than two years. The petitioner has been allowed to continue after probationary period for about 12 years," when as the service rules provide for a fixed period of probation which is liable to be extended. In our view -in the absence of an express order of extension of probation, his continuance beyond ^his maximum period of probation results in his confirmation by implication. See (1) Paramjit Singh and others v. Ram Rakhan and others, AIR 1979 sc 1073 . (2) State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1210 . (3) M. K. Agarwal v. Gttrgaon Gramin Bank and others, AIR 1968 sc 286 and (4) State of Gujarat V Akhtiesh C. Bhargava and others, AIR 1987 sc2135. ( 7 ) WE are also of the view that the impugned order of termination although innocuous, is prmtiive It has been settled now that an order ex-facie innocuous can be punitive and the veil can be lifted to find out the real nature of the onter In this particular case just, before passing of the impugned order of termination, showcause notice was issued to the petitioner attributing misconduct He submitted, his explanation. The federation thereafter did not hold any enquiry. In the return it is stated that no enquiry was held because it would have cast-stigma on the petitioner. The federation thereafter did not hold any enquiry. In the return it is stated that no enquiry was held because it would have cast-stigma on the petitioner. The stand of the Federation on the fact of it is impermissible in the rules. This stand expressed the mind of tlie authority^concerned that the petitioner was presumed to be guilty of the misconduct %nd decision was taken to dispense with his services without holding ady enquiry. We have seen the contents of the showcause notice dated 12-7-1984 and find that there are serious allegations of dereliction of duties. The petitioner had submitted his reply refuting the charges. \n enquiry was, therefore, necessary in terms of Rules 23 to 26 of the Rules, and in any case as a part of principles of natural justice. Even a temporary emyloyee, if sought to be terminated on the basis of charges, deserves an opportunity of being heard against the charges and to all t'i-3 : ifeguards against termination of a regular or permanent employee, under the rules containing procedure to be followed before taking disciplinary action. See Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tube Mazdoor Sabha, i 980 (40) FLR 152 (SC ). ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for ihe Federation has placed reliance on second part of Rule 15 of the Rules, which permits terminaton on one month's or three months' notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof of all employees of the category ol pnmanent or temporary. So far as termination of permanent employr-js -n notice is concerned, similar rule has been held by the Supreme C> un: as being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ofln-'uin the case of Central Inland Water transport Corporation and another, v. Brojo Nath Ganguli and another, 1986 (53) FLR 532 (SC) ( 9 ) SO far as temporary employee is concerned, an order of termination simpliciter cannot be passed if there are charges levelled against the employee, which necessitate holding of a regular enquiry. His services could not have been terminated by a notice simpliciter. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition ucceeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of termination tailed 23-10-1984 (Annexure-1) is hereby quashed. It is directed that the petitioner be re-instated in service forthwith. His services could not have been terminated by a notice simpliciter. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition ucceeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of termination tailed 23-10-1984 (Annexure-1) is hereby quashed. It is directed that the petitioner be re-instated in service forthwith. So far as the back wages or arrears of salary for the interim period from 23-10-1984 to the da to of re-instatement is concerned, we do not grant any relief in this petition, because it would be a matter of fact and investigation as to whether the petitioner in this interim period was gainfully employed elsewhere or not We, therefore, leave the petitioner to resort to such remedy available to him in the industrial law or civil law, for recovering the amount ofbick wages for the above period. The petitioner shall get costs of this petition. Counsel's fee shall be Rs, 1000/-, if certified. The amount of senuritv if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed. .