P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) BY filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the office order dated 30-9-2002, by which it is decided to terminate his services as an ad-hoc employee and consequential order dated 3-10-2002 by which his services have been terminated. Both these orders are annexed at Annexure-C, collectively. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the present controversy are as under : ( 3 ) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer in Electrical Engineering Branch in Government Engineering College, Bhuj on ad-hoc basis. The appointment order was issued by the State of Gujarat in the name of the Governor. As per the aforesaid appointment order, which is at page 9, Annexure-A, the petitioner was initially appointed for 11 months or till the candidate selected through GPSC is available, whichever is earlier. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner were extended and continued from time to time. The department invited applications for ad hoc appointments and the petitioner had applied for the same on the basis of the advertisement and he was selected by the committee. But as stated earlier, his appointment was on ad hoc basis, till GPSC selected candidate is available. Subsequently, by an order dated 30th September, 2002, the Director of Technical Education terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that in view of the letter dated 6-8-2002 issued by the Director of Anti Corruption Branch, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was found to have accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000. 00 and he was caught red-handed, it is clear that he has misused the position as a public servant and in view of such type of activity, his services as ad hoc employee are terminated by resorting to Clause- (4) of the appointment order. In view of the aforesaid termination order passed by the Director of Technical Education, the petitioner was relieved from the services by an order dated 3-10-2002 of the Principal of the Institution. It is this order of termination, which is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner in this Special Civil Application. ( 4 ) AT the time of hearing of the petition, the learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. It is this order of termination, which is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner in this Special Civil Application. ( 4 ) AT the time of hearing of the petition, the learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Patel has submitted that in view of the contents of the termination order, it is clear that it is punitive in nature and is passed because of alleged involvement of the petitioner in a corruption case and his services have been terminated. He has submitted that the order itself, states that in view of alleged activities of the petitioner regarding taking illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000. 00, his services are required to be terminated. Therefore, the order in question is penal on the face of it and stigmatic, as it is passed without hearing the petitioner and without following the principles of natural justice and such order could not have been passed. Mr. Patel further submitted that when the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground of alleged misconduct, the petitioner was required to be heard and inquiry was required to be held. To substantiate his say, Mr. Patel has relied upon various judgements of the Supreme Court, which are as under :i) D. P. Banerjee Vs. S. N. Bose, National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 983 ;ii) Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U. P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another, reported in AIR 1999 SC 609 ; ANDIII) Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U. P. and Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1706 ( 5 ) RELYING upon the aforesaid judgements, Mr. Patel submitted that the foundation for passing the aforesaid order is the so-called alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner in connection with accepting illegal gratification and according to him, the order itself, makes the said aspect clear, as in the order itself, there is a mention about the aforesaid aspect. He further submitted that the order in question is not a discharge simpliciter. According to Mr. Patel, even if the services of a probationer or a temporary Government servant is terminated on the ground of misconduct, he is required to be heard. He further submitted that the order in question is not a discharge simpliciter. According to Mr. Patel, even if the services of a probationer or a temporary Government servant is terminated on the ground of misconduct, he is required to be heard. It is also submitted that the services of the petitioner are not terminated on the ground of unsuitability or on any other ground, except the aforesaid act of alleged misconduct, as reflected in the order. ( 6 ) MR. SOOD, learned AGP, on the other hand, submitted that the final four lines in the termination order clearly show that it is a simpliciter order of termination as per clause (4) of the appointment order and, therefore, even though reference is made about anti-corruption case or alleged act of the petitioner of accepting illegal gratification, it cannot be said that the order is a stigmatic one as the employer is entitled to terminate the services of an employee, if he is not found suitable for the post. In order to substantiate his say, Mr. Sood has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court reported in (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases page 691. He submitted that there is no substance in the petition and the same may be dismissed. ( 7 ) I have considered the arguments of both the sides and I have also considered various judgements cited by both the sides. At this stage, some factual aspect is required to be taken into consideration. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time, when the termination order was passed, the petitioner had already put in about six years service. Initially, the petitioner was appointed by an order dated 1-11-1996 for a period of 11 months. In Clause- (4) of the aforesaid appointment order, which is produced at page 9, it is mentioned that during the service tenure if it is found that the services of the petitioner are not satisfactory, he can be relieved from the aforesaid post. Mr. Sood, learned AGP, has heavily relied upon the said Clause (4) to substantiate his say that in view of the fact that the petitioner has not served satisfactorily, ultimately, his services were terminated, and therefore, it is a simpliciter termination. Mr. Sood, learned AGP, has heavily relied upon the said Clause (4) to substantiate his say that in view of the fact that the petitioner has not served satisfactorily, ultimately, his services were terminated, and therefore, it is a simpliciter termination. It is, however, required to be noted that the services of the petitioner were continued from time to time and his services were continued till G. P. S. C. selected candidate is available. In the meanwhile, on the ground of alleged involvement of the petitioner in anti-corruption case his services have been terminated. ( 8 ) THE question which is required to be considered in this petition is whether the impugned order is a simpliciter termination order or the same is punitive in nature. In the instant case, the termination order, itself, clearly suggests that in view of the involvement of the petitioner in a corruption case, ultimately the respondent has decided to terminate the services of the petitioner. It is required to be noted that what has weighed with the Director of Technical Education while passing the impugned order is the factum of the aforesaid anti-corruption case and the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the same. The impugned termination order itself makes it clear that in view of the criminal activity on the part of the petitioner, it is found that the petitioner is not discharging his duties satisfactorily and in that view of the matter his services have been terminated. Reading of the aforesaid termination order makes it clear that the order in question is not a simple termination order but it is based on the aforesaid alleged misconduct attributed to the petitioner and that is the basis and foundation of the said order. ( 9 ) IT is averred in the petition that because of the aforesaid so-called misconduct attributed to the petitioner, his services have been terminated. This averment is not denied by the department by filing any affidavit-in-reply controverting the said averment. It is also required to be noted that reading the termination order, it is clear that there is a reference about anti-corruption case in the said order. This averment is not denied by the department by filing any affidavit-in-reply controverting the said averment. It is also required to be noted that reading the termination order, it is clear that there is a reference about anti-corruption case in the said order. It is also clear from the said order that this is not a simpliciter termination order but in view of the alleged misconduct, which is highlighted in the said order, services of the petitioner have been terminated by taking shelter of Clause- (4) of the appointment order. Simply because reference of said Clause is made in the order, that itself is not enough for coming to the conclusion that it is a simpliciter termination order. In my view, the entire basis and foundation for passing the impugned order is the aforesaid criminal case in which the petitioner is alleged to have been involved. At this stage, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla reported in (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 691 wherein the Supreme Court has considered the aspect of termination of ad hoc or temporary Government servant. The Supreme Court has considered the question about simpliciter termination order in terms of contract of service and rules. In the aforesaid case, the employee was appointed on ad hoc basis as an Assistant Auditor and his appointment was purely on ad hoc and temporary basis. There were some adverse entries in the service record of the said employee and even some preliminary inquiry was held against him. In the said case, the High Court took the view that since the order of termination was founded on an adverse entry given in the character roll, without giving any opportunity of being heard, the said decision cannot be said to be a decision given in good faith. In the said case, the High Court took the view that since the order of termination was founded on an adverse entry given in the character roll, without giving any opportunity of being heard, the said decision cannot be said to be a decision given in good faith. Reversing the said order of the High Court, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that mere fact that prior to the issuance of the order of termination, the inquiry was held in regard to the allegations of unauthorised audit of Boys Fund, does not change the nature of order of termination into that of punishment as after the preliminary inquiry, the competent authority took no steps to punish the respondent, instead, it exercised the option in accordance with the contract of service and Rules. It is observed by the Supreme Court in para 13 as under :"13. IN the instant case the respondent was a temporary government servant and there was adverse report regarding his work which was reflected in the adverse remarks made for the year 1977-78. The competent authority held a preliminary inquiry in the allegations of improper conduct in carrying out unauthorised audit of Boys Fund of an educational institution, on result of the preliminary enquiry no charges were framed against the respondent, no officer was appointed for holding the departmental inquiry instead the competent authority chose to terminate the respondents services in exercise of its powers under the terms of contract as well as under the relevant rules applicable to a temporary government servant. It never intended to dismiss the respondent from service. Holding of preliminary inquiry does not affect the nature of the termination order. The allegations made against the respondent contained in the counter-affidavit by way of a defence filed on behalf of the appellants also do not change the nature and character of the order of termination. The High Court failed to consider the question in proper perspective and it interfered with the order of termination in a casual manner. " ( 10 ) IN subsequent judgement in the case of D. P. Banerjee Vs. The High Court failed to consider the question in proper perspective and it interfered with the order of termination in a casual manner. " ( 10 ) IN subsequent judgement in the case of D. P. Banerjee Vs. S. N. Bose, National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 983 , after considering the question of termination of services of a probationer, which can be termed as stigmatic or as simpliciter termination on the ground of unsuitability, the Supreme Court observed in paras 35 and 36 as under :"35. IT will be seen from the above case that the resolution of the committee was part of the termination order being an enclosure to it. But the offensive part was not really contained in the order of termination nor in the Resolution which was an enclosure to the order of termination but in the Managers report which was referred to in the enclosure. The said report of the Manager was placed before the Court along with the counter. The allegations in the Managers report were the basis for the termination and the said report contained words amounting to stigma. The termination order was, as stated above, set aside. 36. THE above decision is, in our view, clear authority for the proposition that the material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in the order of termination of the probationer but might be contained in any document referred to in the termination order or in its Annexures. Obviously such a document could be asked for or called for by any future employer of the probationer. In such a case, the order of termination would stand vitiated on the ground that no regular inquiry was conducted. We shall presently consider whether, on the facts of the case before us, the documents referred to in the impugned order contain any stigma. " ( 11 ) IN another judgement in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U. P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another, reported in AIR 1999 SC 609 the Supreme Court has considered the earlier judgement of the Supreme Court. Considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nepali Sing Vs. " ( 11 ) IN another judgement in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U. P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another, reported in AIR 1999 SC 609 the Supreme Court has considered the earlier judgement of the Supreme Court. Considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nepali Sing Vs. State of U. P. AIR 1985 SC 84 the Supreme Court held that where the termination is preceded by an inquiry and evidence is received and findings as to misconduct of a definitive nature are arrived at behind the back of the Officer and where on the basis of such a report, the termination order is issued, such an order will be violative of the principles of natural justice. Such observation has been made in para 35 of the said judgement. So far as the facts of the aforesaid case are concerned, it has been observed in para 36 as under :"36. COMING now to the facts of the case before us, the inquiry officer, Sri R. P. Singh examined witnesses and in his report dated 22-1-76 has said : "i conclude that Sri R. P. Gupta took a sum of Rs. 2000. 00 from Sri Jai Chandra Lal, thereafter referring to certain facts said they go to prove the correctness of the complaint. Not only that, he concluded "i therefore suggest that services of Sri R. S. Gupta may be terminated and one month salary may be given to him in lieu of the notice". The very next day, the impugned simple order of termination followed. " ( 12 ) THE aforesaid question about terminating the services of a probationer or temporary employee on a simple ground of unsuitability or otherwise is again considered by the Apex Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U. P. and Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1706 . In para 28 of the said judgement it is observed as under :"if for the determination of suitability of the probationer for the post in question or for his further retention in service or for confirmation, an enquiry is held and it is held on the basis of that enquiry that a decision is taken to terminate his service, the order will not be punitive in nature. But, if there are allegations of misconduct and an enquiry is held to find out the truth of that misconduct and an order terminating the service is passed on the basis of that enquiry, the order would be punitive in nature as the enquiry was held not for assessing the general suitability of the employee for the post in question, but to find out the truth of allegations of misconduct against that employee. In this situation, the order would be founded on misconduct and it will not be a mere matter of "motive". " ( 13 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid case laws, in my view, it cannot be said that the impugned termination order is simple in nature, or the services of the petitioner have been put to an end on the ground of his non-satisfactory performance. The factum of statement regarding non-satisfactory performance of the duty on the part of the petitioner is related to the aforesaid misconduct attributed to the petitioner and that is how the order cannot be said to be a simpliciter termination order but the same is punitive in nature. In that view of the matter, the order impugned in this petition is required to be set aside on the aforesaid ground, as the same is passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the same is stigmatic in nature. It would have been a different situation if a simple termination order is passed without any reference to the alleged misconduct in that order. However, since the authority has disclosed its mind while passing the said order and the said reflection of mind clearly establishes the fact that in view of the corruption case, petitioners services have been terminated. Therefore, it is not possible to believe that the order in question is a simple termination order and not a punitive one. ( 14 ) IT is also required to be noted that since 1996, services of the petitioner were extended and as pointed out by learned AGP, Mr. Sood, the services of the petitioner were required to be extended till the GPSC selected candidate was available. ( 15 ) IN view of what is stated above, both the orders annexed at Annexure-C, dated 30-9-2002 and 3-10-2002, are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Sood, the services of the petitioner were required to be extended till the GPSC selected candidate was available. ( 15 ) IN view of what is stated above, both the orders annexed at Annexure-C, dated 30-9-2002 and 3-10-2002, are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. It would be open for the department to act in accordance with law, in case, it is decided to put an end to the services of the petitioner. So far as the present order is concerned, the same is passed in view of nature of the termination order passed against the petitioner, which is held to be punitive and only on the aforesaid ground, the said order is set aside. ( 16 ) THE respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today and whatever benefits which are required to be given in view of setting aside of the said order, be given to the petitioner within a period of one month from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Writ of this order be sent forthwith. .