JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20th February, 1987 dismissing the writ petition. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the appellant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk by order dated 7th August, 1978 purely on temporary basis for a period of three months with the specific condition that his services can be terminated at any time without notice or assigning in any reason. The services of the appellant were extended from time to time. The service of the appellant was not found satisfactory as such his services were terminated by order dated 7th March, 1986 after paying one month salary in lieu of notice in terms of the order of appointment. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the order of termination was punitive in nature inasmuch as that he was punished without inquiry. The learned Single Judge found that a preliminary enquiry was made in order to ascertain as to whether the services of the appellant was temporary in nature and could he be retained or his services be brought to an end. The learned Single Judge having found that order of termination was not by way of punishment dismissed the writ petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that order of termination is by way of punishment, which is evident from a just took at the notice Annexure-3, wherein certain allegations were levelled against him. Thus, the order of termination without holding a regular inquiry is illegal. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in JT 2000(5) SC 181 , wherein it is held that even a temporary Government servants or a probationers are entitled to protection under Articles 311 of the Constitution. He has also relied on another decision of the Apex Court in Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in JT 2000(5) SC 181 , wherein it is held that even a temporary Government servants or a probationers are entitled to protection under Articles 311 of the Constitution. He has also relied on another decision of the Apex Court in Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in JT 2000(8) SC 26 , wherein it is held that an order of discharge may look innocuous, but on close scrutiny, by looking behind the curtain, and if any material exist of misconduct and which is the foundation of passing of the order of discharge, or such could be reasonably inferred, then it leaves to no room of doubt that any consequential order, event of discharge would be construed as stigmatic and in such cases an opportunity must be given. It may be stated that the appellant was an employee of the University and as such the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India are not attracted. 4. Recently in Shailaja Shivajirao Patil v. President Hon. Khasdar UGS Sanstha & Ors. reported in 2002(2) Supreme 292 the Apex Court has held that in a case of termination of services of a probationer/temporary employees, mere holding of and enquiry does not ipso-facto make the order of termination penal in nature, once the employer wishes not to continue the enquiry in exercise of his right in accordance with terms of appointment. In the said case employer had issued a show cause notice to the employee indicating certain drawbacks in his work. The Apex Court relying on its earlier decision reported in JT 2001(9) SC 420 (Pavanendra Narayan Verms v. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences & Anr.) wherein on examining the entire gamut of case law, right from Dhingra's case, the Court came to the conclusion-that a mere holding of an enquiry does not ipso-facto make the order of termination penal in nature. It was further held that the enquiry held prior to the order of termination cannot turn otherwise innocuous order into one of punishment. It was also held that an employer is entitled to satisfy itself as to the competence of a probationer to be confirmed in service and for this purpose satisfy itself fairly as to the truth of any allegation that may have been made about the concerned employee. It was also held that an employer is entitled to satisfy itself as to the competence of a probationer to be confirmed in service and for this purpose satisfy itself fairly as to the truth of any allegation that may have been made about the concerned employee. In the instant case, the University on preliminary inquiry has found the appellant not to continue in service as such rightly removed him in terms of order of appointment. No interference is called for by us in special appeal. 5. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.Special appeal dismissed - Order of Single Judge affirmed. *******