Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition was originally filed before this Court on 3/5/1988 and was registered as Misc. Petition No. 1742/88. However, on account of the establishment of the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal, this petition was transferred to the Tribunal at Jabalpur where it was registered as T. A. No. 911/1988. The Tribunal dismissed this petition on 30/12/1995 and thereafter the petitioner filed a review petition before the Tribunal which was registered as M. A. No. 184/1996. During the pendency of the review application before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was abolished, eventually, the review application was transferred to this Court for its decision and was registered in this Court as M. C. C. No. 936/2003. This Court on 1-2-2005 allowed the review application and directed to re-hear the petition. ( 2. ) IN this manner this petition was listed for hearing. ( 3. ) THE petitioner has called in question the printability of the impugned order dated 26/3/1985 (Document No. 4) whereby his services have been directed to be terminated after one month from the date of receipt of the order. ( 4. ) AS per the case of the petitioner, he was appointed on the post of LDC vide order of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department w. e. f. 12/6/1975. His services were later on transferred to Balaghat under the Executive Engineer where he continued his services on the post of LDC till 22/2/1984 and as such he was a quasi permanent employee. ( 5. ) FURTHER case of the petitioner is that in the year 1984 the Superintendent of Police wanted the services of the Stenographer as a result of which the petitioner applied for the same. Later on, he was appointed on 23/2/1984 on the post of Stenographer under Superintendent of Police, Balaghat and, thus, there was no break in his service and he had a lien over his previous post in the Irrigation Department. According to the petitioner, though he was fully qualified to be appointed on the post of Stenographer, however, he was appointed on temporary basis vide order dated 21/2/1984 (Annexure-R/1 filed along with return of respondent No. 2 ). It has been vehemently argued by Shri Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the appointment was in continuation to his earlier service in the Irrigation department. It has been vehemently argued by Shri Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the appointment was in continuation to his earlier service in the Irrigation department. The petitioners services were terminated vide order dated 26/3/1985 issued by Superintendent of Police, Balaghat (respondent No. 2), a copy of which has been placed on record as Document No. 4. The representations were submitted by him but they were not allowed. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as a matter of fact the petitioners earlier services ought to have been counted and if that is the position, without holding any enquiry, his services could not have been terminated. An alternative submission has also been putforth by him that if the petitioner is held to be newly recruited in the Police Department in terms of Annexure-R/1 filed along with return of respondent No. 2, then after lifting the veil, one can easily say that the termination order is stigmatic. In that regard, learned Counsel has invited my attention to Annexure-R/2 dated 27/5/1985 which is an order passed by DIG, Jabalpur Range, rejecting his representation in which it has been mentioned that he had served in irresponsible manner. According to learned Counsel, this amount to casting stigma and the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without holding any enquiry though he was temporary Government Servant. Since, admittedly, this has not been done, the termination order (document No. 4) dated 26/3/1985 be quashed and the petitioner be taken back in service with all consequential benefits. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. AIR1974 SC 2192 , (1974 )II LLJ465 SC , (1974 )2 SCC831 , [1975 ]1 SCR814 , 1975 (1 )SLJ1 (SC ). (ii) The Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and Anr. , v. Dwarka Das etc. AIR1979 SC 336 , 1979 Lablc164 , (1979 )3 SCC789 , [1979 ]2 SCR405 , 1979 (11 )UJ83 (SC ). (iii) The Manager, Govt. Branch Press and Anr. v. D. B. Belliappa AIR1979 SC 429 , [1979 (38 )FLR337 ], 1979 Lablc146 , (1979 )I LLJ156 SC , (1979 )1 SCC477 , [1979 ]2 SCR458. (iv) Kanhailal v. Distt. Judge and Ors. AIR1983 SC 351 , (1983 )3 SCC32 , 1983 (2 )SLJ528 (SC ). (v) Anoop Jaiswal v. Govt. of India and Anr. Branch Press and Anr. v. D. B. Belliappa AIR1979 SC 429 , [1979 (38 )FLR337 ], 1979 Lablc146 , (1979 )I LLJ156 SC , (1979 )1 SCC477 , [1979 ]2 SCR458. (iv) Kanhailal v. Distt. Judge and Ors. AIR1983 SC 351 , (1983 )3 SCC32 , 1983 (2 )SLJ528 (SC ). (v) Anoop Jaiswal v. Govt. of India and Anr. AIR1984 SC 636 , [1984 (48 )FLR258 ], 1984 Lablc343 , (1984 )I LLJ337 SC , 1984 (1 )SCALE105 , (1984 )2 SCC369 , [1984 ]2 SCR453 , 1984 (16 )UJ925 (SC ). (vi) Nepal Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. AIR1985 SC 84 , [1985 (50 )FLR77 ], 1985 Lablc587 , (1986 )II LLJ343 SC , 1984 (2 )SCALE693 , (1985 )1 SCC56 , [1985 ]2 SCR1 , 1985 (17 )UJ287 (SC ). (vii) Smt. Rajinder Kaur v. Punjab State and Anr. AIR1986 SC 1790 , JT1986 (1 )SC 86 , (1986 )I LLJ93 SC , 1986 (2 )SCALE203 , (1986 )4 SCC141 , [1986 ]3 SCR500 , 1987 (1 )SLJ33 (SC ), 1986 (2 )UJ709 (SC ). (viii) Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U. P. and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1706 . (ix) Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1987 (4) SLR 576 (SC ). ( 6. ) PER contra, Shri Deepak Awashty, learned Govt. Advocate, by inviting my attention to the return filed by respondents No. 2 and 3, has submitted that though earlier the petitioner was an employee of Irrigation department and he was serving under Executive Engineer on the post of LDC and was appointed on 27/7/1975 where he served upto 22/2/1984, but, thereafter he submitted his resignation wilfully and left the department. Copy of the resignation submitted by the petitioner has been filed along with return of respondent No. 3 as Annexure-R/1. The said resignation letter was accepted by the department vide order dated 23/2/1985 w. e. f. 22/2/1984/a copy of the acceptance of resignation has been placed on record as Annexure-R/2. After tendering his resignation the petitioner never attended the office of respondent No. 3. His resignation was accepted and he did not remain as an employee of the Irrigation Department. ( 7. After tendering his resignation the petitioner never attended the office of respondent No. 3. His resignation was accepted and he did not remain as an employee of the Irrigation Department. ( 7. ) ACCORDING to the return filed by Superintendent of Police (respondent No. 2), the petitioner has deliberately concealed the material fact stating that he tendered his resignation in the Irrigation Department which has been accepted on 23/2/1985 w. e. f. 22/2/1984 and, therefore, his earlier service period which was performed by him in the Irrigation Department cannot be counted while considering the service period in the Police Department. It has been specially pleaded in the return that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Stenographer was purely on temporary basis and his services were liable to be terminated after serving one months notice. Copy of the appointment letter dated 21/2/1984 has been placed on record as Annexure-R/1 filed along with return of respondent No. 2. ( 8. ) IT has been vehemently argued by Shri Deepak Awashty, learned Govt. Advocate, that since the performance of the petitioner was not found satisfactory nor his services were no more required, therefore, by serving a months notice, his services were discontinued. According to learned Govt. Advocate, since no stigma has been casted, therefore, there is no fault arbitrariness or illegality in passing the of impugned order dated 26/3/1985 (Document No. 4) discontinuing the services of the petitioner. According to learned Government Advocate, under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, since the petitioner was only a temporary employee, therefore, rightly his services were terminated and for that no enquiry was contemplated. It has also been canvassed by learned Govt. Advocate that if the document Annexure-R/2 filed along with return of respondent No. 2 is considered in its proper perspective, it simply demonstrate that the petitioner was irresponsible in discharging his duties and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said phraseology is casting any in stigma and the termination order (Document No. 4) is stigmatic in nature. In support of his contention, learned Govt. Advocate has placed reliance on the latest pronouncement of Supreme Court in the case of Registrar, High Court of Gujarat and Anr. In support of his contention, learned Govt. Advocate has placed reliance on the latest pronouncement of Supreme Court in the case of Registrar, High Court of Gujarat and Anr. v. C. G. Sharma AIR2005 SC 344 , 2004 (5 )CTC525 , 2005 (3 )ESC346 , (2005 )1 GLR649 , JT2004 (9 )SC 602 , 2004 (9 )SCALE478 , (2005 )1 SCC132 , 2005 (2 )SLJ104 (SC ), (2005 )1 UPLBEC313 , According to learned Govt. Advocate this petition be dismissed. ( 9. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 10. ) ON going through the averments made in the petition, it is gathered that the petitioner suppressed the material facts. On going through the return filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the Annexures filed along with return, it is found that earlier the petitioner was an employee of the State of Madhya Pradesh and was serving in Irrigation Department under Executive Engineer on the post of LDC. However, he submitted his resignation and left his services from the said department. The resignation was accepted and, thus, he did not remain an employee of Irrigation Department. A copy of resignation letter of the petitioner has been placed on record along with return of respondent No. 3 as Annexure-R/1 and the copy of acceptance of the resignation has been placed on record as Annexure-R/2. After tendering the resignation from the services of Irrigation Department, the petitioner never attended the office of that department. Since his resignation was accepted, therefore, he did not remain an employee of the Irrigation Department. The memorandum of petition is absolutely silent in this regard and, thus, it is held that the petitioner deliberately concealed all these material facts. ( 11. ) ON going through appointment letter of petitioner Annexure-R/1 filed along with return of respondent No. 2, it is gathered that on 21/2/1984 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Stenographer temporarily. In the appointment letter it has been specifically mentioned that his services are governed by the provisions of M. P. Govt. Servant (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Services) Rules, 1960 (in short the Rules ). It was further made clear that his services could come to an end at any time by giving one months notice by the either side or after making the payment of one months salary. Servant (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Services) Rules, 1960 (in short the Rules ). It was further made clear that his services could come to an end at any time by giving one months notice by the either side or after making the payment of one months salary. Since the petitioner was appointed on 21/2/1984 and his service came to an end on 26/3/1985, thus, he had served less than three years. The status of quasi permanent employee could be conferred to an employee under Rule 3 of the said Rules only when: (i) he had served for more than three years in a temporary service or; (ii) the appointing authority after being satisfied has given a declaration to the effect of a suitability in respect to age, qualifications, work and character for employment in a quasi-permanent; capacity. In the present case, none of the above condition is existing. Admittedly, the petitioner has not served for more than three years nor the appointing authority has given such declaration as prescribed under Rule 3 of the Rules. Under Rule 12 (a) of the Rules, a temporary government employee who has not become quasi permanent, his services could be terminated at any time by giving one months notice in writing either by the Govt. Servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Govt. Servant. On going through Document No. 4 dated 26/3/1985, it is gathered that since the services of the petitioner were no longer required, therefore, it was directed that his services would come to an end after one month of the issuance of the order. Thus, the services of the petitioner were validity terminated in terms of Rule 12 (a) of the Rules. There is no challenge in regard of the authenticity of issuance of order of termination (Document No. 4) by respondent No. 2 i. e. Superintendent of Police. Indeed, Superintendent of Police was the appointing authority of the petitioner and he issued the appointment letter Annexure-R/1 dated 21/2/1984. On going through Document No. 4 which is the order of termination, it is gathered that the service of petitioner was no longer required and, therefore, it was terminated. ( 12. ) NO doubt, it is true that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 9/5/1985 to Dy. Inspector General of Police assailing his termination order (Document No. 4 ). On going through the order of Dy. ( 12. ) NO doubt, it is true that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 9/5/1985 to Dy. Inspector General of Police assailing his termination order (Document No. 4 ). On going through the order of Dy. Inspector General of Police Annexure-R/2 dismissing the representation of the petitioner, one cannot say that the termination order (Document No. 4) is stigmatic in nature. On the contrary it is gathered that the Dy. Inspector of General after scanning the entire service record of the petitioner found that the petitioner was discharging his duty in irresponsible manner. Merely, mentioning in Annexure-R/2 that the petitioner was discharging his duty in irresponsible manner, would itself no ground to constitute that the order of termination (Document No. 4) is stigmatic in nature. Since the petitioner was only temporary Government employee, therefore, the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India are not attracted in the present case. In this view of the matter, the decisions which are cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner are not at all applicable in the present facts and circumstances. In all those decisions the order of termination was found to be stigmatic in nature. In the present case, on going through Annexure-R/2, I do not find that the impugned order is stigmatic in nature from any angle. On going through Annexure-R/2 which is an order dated 27/5/1985 rejecting the representation of the petitioner by Dy. Inspector General of Police, it is gathered that after scanning the entire material available, it was found that the services of petitioner are unsuitable and if that is the position, the view of this Court is that the impugned termination order (Document No. 4) is in consonance to Rule 12 (a) of the Rules. The decision of the Supreme Court C. G. Sharma (supra) is applicable in the present case. ( 13. ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition is found to be bereft of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.