D. R. CHAUDHARY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who was on approved list of selected candidates was appointed as Class IV employee In judgeship, Hamirpur district, Hamirpur by means of appointment letter dated 9. 7. 1997 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition ). One of the terms of the appointment was that the appointment being temporary would be liable to be terminated at any time without any prior notice. Petitioners services were terminated by an order dated 17. 5. 1997 which reads as under: "he is on probation. He is not sincere, terminated with immediate effect. " sd/. (M, S. Premi)17. 5. 1997 district Judge, Hamirpur. ( 2 ) THE order aforestated Is under challenge in the present writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the order, ex-facie, is based on misconduct and being stigmatic and thus punitive in nature cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as no enquiry was held nor the petitioner was afforded any opportunity of hearing. ( 3 ) SRI K. R. Sirohi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that as per terms of appointment, the services of the petitioner could be terminated at any time without any notice, he cannot claim any right on the post on which he was appointed on purely temporary basis ; the Central Nazir submitted his report dated 15. 7. 1997 that the petitioner was not sincere to his duties, hence, the impugned order has rightly been passed. ( 4 ) A similar controversy came up before the Apex Court in V. P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab and others, (2000) 2 UPLBEC 960, wherein the appellant was appointed as Chief Executive in establishment of Punjab Co-operative Cotton Marketting and Spinning Mills Federation Ltd, on probation of two years which could be extended on the discretion of Management who would be having right to terminate his services without notice ; his work and conduct was all along under scrutiny and since his work was not satisfactory, his services were terminated in terms set out in the appointment letter. The Apex Court held as under : "a probationer, like a temporary servant, is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily, nor can those services be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural Justice. The Apex Court held as under : "a probationer, like a temporary servant, is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily, nor can those services be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural Justice. " While recording the finding as above, the Apex Court rejected the plea raised In support of the termination order. ( 5 ) IN case of Har Pal Singh v. State of U. P. , 1988 UPLBEC 213, the order of termination was passed after the adverse entries were made against the petitioner who was not confirmed and was still a temporary employee. Although the order was one of termination slmpliciter without stigma against the petitioner and was passed without affording opportunity of hearing, the supreme Court after having considered the facts of that case, came to the conclusion that, order of termination was grounded on misconduct and as such after having followed the law in samsher Singh v. State of Punjab. (1975) 1 SCR 814 , the Apex Court held that if an innocuous order is grounded upon feathers which cast stigma against the affected officer, he was entitled to defend himself in the proceeding provided under the rules applicable to him. The law is settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court on the subject. ( 6 ) IN the present case, the respondent has filed counter-affidavit. In Para 8 of the counter-affidavit, it is averred that on 17. 5. 1997 a report was submitted by the Assistant Nazir about the work and conduct of the petitioner consequently the services of the petitioner were terminated on the same day. . . . . ". The averments aforestated and a perusal of the report dated 17. 5. 1997 which contained the order of termination also, make it abundantly clear that the foundation of termination was misconduct of the petitioner amounting to stigma for which ; concededly, no opportunity to defend was afforded to him. The contention of Sri K. R. Sirohi that the petitioner being a temporary employee, is not entitled for opportunity to defend himself, is not acceptable being contrary to law laid down by Honble Supreme Court as referred to above and also in Its catena of decisions and by various High Courts in bed roll of cases which are not being referred to herein for brevity. ( 7 ) IN view of the above the writ petition succeeds and is allowed, the termination order dated 17. 5. 1997 passed by the respondent is quashed but without any order as to cost in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. ( 8 ) THE petitioner shall be entitled to the consequential benefits. .