Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of termination dated 8. 11. 1997, annexure A10, passed by the District Judge Mandsaur (respondent no. 2) whereby his services have been terminated with effect from 12. 12. 1997. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 31. 3. 1998, Annexure A12, passed by the Registrar General (respondent no. 1) whereby his appeal has been dismissed. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that by order dated 6. 6. 1995 District Judge, Mandsaur (respondent no. 2) appointed the petitioner on the post of Process Writer and posted him in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, neemuch. Condition No. 7 of the appointment order of petitioner provided that his services could be terminated without any prior notice if he was found either undisciplined or negligent in work. During the relevant period, the petitioner was posted in the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Neemuch (respondent no. 3 ). On 3. 9. 1997 respondent no. 2 sent a letter, Annexure A2, to the petitioner asking him to offer his explanation on the following three allegations of misconduct: (a) that despite payment of Rs. 79/- as process fee in Civil Suit No. 18a/90 to him on 31. 7. 1997 by Shri Bhatnagar, Advocate, he neither deposited that amount nor issued the process (b) that he did not issue the process in Civil Suit No. 38a/96 despite submission of papers by Shri Bhatnagar, Advocate, on 29. 7. 1997 for issuing process and (c) similarly he did not issue the process in Civil Suit No. 24b/93x7/95 despite submission of papers for the same on 25. 4. 1997. The petitioner, after receiving the letter, deposited Rs. 79/- on 8. 8. 1997 in the Court and issued the process in Civil Suit No. 18a/90, On that day he also issued the process in Civil suit No. 24b/93x7/95. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted his reply, Annexure a3, on the same day and gave an explanation that he could not deposit the amount earlier because of the extra workload of another Court on him. Respondent no. 3 by letter dated 9. 9. 1997, Annexure R1, informed respondent no. 2 that the petitioner was guilty of misappropriating a sum of Rs. 79/- and recommended for his demotion. Respondent no. 3 by letter dated 9. 9. 1997, Annexure R1, informed respondent no. 2 that the petitioner was guilty of misappropriating a sum of Rs. 79/- and recommended for his demotion. He also sought permission from respondent no. 2 to lodge a police report against the petitioner. In reply to this letter, respondent no. 2 by communication dated 17. 9. 1997, Annexure A9, authorized respondent no. 3 to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. In the said communication respondent no. 2 also stated that he had separately ordered for a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Respondent no. 3 then lodged a written report on 18. 9. 1997, Annexure a8, at Police Station, Neemuch, alleging that the petitioner had temporarily misappropriated a sum of Rs. 79/-between 31. 7. 1997 and 8. 9. 1997 and this act of his was punishable under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. In the report respondent no. 3 also stated that it was being lodged after prior approval from respondent no. 2. ( 3. ) ON 4. 10. 1997 respondent no. 2 issued a charge sheet, Annexure A5, against the petitioner on the charge that he did not deposit Rs. 79/- in Civil Suit No. 18a/90 despite having paid that amount by Shri Bhatnagar, Advocate, on 31. 7. 1997. In the charge sheet the names of respondent no. 3, clerk of Shri Bhatnagar, Advocate, and Reader were cited as witnesses and the list of documents, apart from other documents, referred to a letter dated 9. 9. 1997 of respondent no. 1, statement dated 9. 9. 1997 of the clerk of Shri Bhatnagar and also the first information report. ( 4. ) ON 5. 11. 1997 the petitioner submitted an application, Annexure A6, and requested respondent no. 2 to supply him the copies of the statements of witnesses recording during the preliminary enquiry so that he may file a suitable reply. Respondent no. 2, instead, dropped the enquiry and passed the impugned order of termination dated 8. 11. 1997, Annexure A10, stating simply that the services of petitioner were no longer required with effect from 12. 12. 1997. The petitioner filed an appeal against the termination order but the same was dismissed by respondent no. 1 vide order dated 31. 3. 1998, Annexure A12. ( 5. 11. 1997, Annexure A10, stating simply that the services of petitioner were no longer required with effect from 12. 12. 1997. The petitioner filed an appeal against the termination order but the same was dismissed by respondent no. 1 vide order dated 31. 3. 1998, Annexure A12. ( 5. ) THE case of petitioner is that though the termination order appears to be innocuous, it is punitive in nature as it was based on an ex-parte report of enquiry by respondent no. 3. According to the petitioner, the allegation of temporary misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 79- was not merely the motive but the very foundation of the order of his termination. The petitioner, therefore, submitted that since he has been terminated without any opportunity of hearing, the termination order deserves to be quashed. The petitioner has also alleged malafides against respondent no. 3. The respondents, in their return, have stated that there was sufficient material to indicate the unsatisfactory work and conduct of the petitioner and hence it was decided to terminate his temporary service in terms of condition no. 7 of the order of appointment which permitted such termination. In the return the respondents apart from referring to letter dated 9. 9. 1997, Annexure R1, have also referred to letters Annexures R3, R4 and R5 written by different judicial officers complaining against the unsatisfactory working of the petitioner. The petitioner in his rejoinder has filed the judgments of his acquittal as Annexures a13 and A14 which includes the case of misappropriation of Rs. 79/ -. ( 6. ) IN view of the above pleadings and submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties, the main question which calls for consideration is whether the order of termination though innocuous is punitive in nature. ( 7. 79/ -. ( 6. ) IN view of the above pleadings and submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties, the main question which calls for consideration is whether the order of termination though innocuous is punitive in nature. ( 7. ) IT is now well settled that in cases where the termination of the services of a temporary employee is preceded by an enquiry and evidence is received and findings as to misconduct of a definitive nature are arrived at behind the back of the employee and where on the basis of such a report, the termination order is issued, such an order will be violative of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the purpose of the enquiry is to find out the truth of the allegations with a view to punish him and not merely to gather evidence for a future regular departmental enquiry. In such cases, the termination is to be treated as based or founded upon misconduct and will be punitive. See, Radheyshayam Gupta Vs. U. P. State Agro Industries Corporation Limited AIR 1999 SC 609 . ( 8. ) IN the case at hand, respondent no. 3 in his letter dated 9. 9. 1997 held the petitioner guilty of temporary misappropriating Rs. 79/- and recommended for his demotion. On this finding, respondent no. 3 even sought permission from respondent no. 2 to lodge a police report against the petitioner which was duly accorded. Thereupon, respondent no. 3 lodged the first information report on 18. 9. 1997 against the petitioner wherein he again held the petitioner guilty for an offence under section 407 of the Indian Penal Code. Based on these findings of respondent no. 3 against the petitioner, respondent no. 2 decided to hold a departmental enquiry and even issued the charge sheet. In the charge sheet respondent no. 3 was cited as one of the witnesses and his letter and first information report against the petitioner were part of the charge sheet. Not only this, the statements of clerk of shri Bhatnagar, Advocate, and Court Reader recorded by respondent no. 3 against the petitioner were also the part of the charge sheet. Respondent no. 3 was cited as one of the witnesses and his letter and first information report against the petitioner were part of the charge sheet. Not only this, the statements of clerk of shri Bhatnagar, Advocate, and Court Reader recorded by respondent no. 3 against the petitioner were also the part of the charge sheet. Respondent no. 2 dropped the proceedings of departmental enquiry when the petitioner asked for the copies of the statements recorded behind his back as well as the documents referred to in the charge sheet and passed the impugned order of termination. The findings arrived at against the petitioner by respondent no. 3 holding him guilty of misappropriating Rs. 79/- are definitive in nature. They are not like preliminary report where some facts are gathered and a recommendation is made for a departmental enquiry. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by respondent no. 3 before giving findings against him. It is to be noted that respondent no. 3 vide Annexure R3 dated 15. 10. 1997 made a similar complaint against the petitioner in respect of another civil suit. All these facts lead to only one conclusion that the termination order was founded on the findings of respondent no. 3 against the petitioner and hence it is punitive in nature. Moreover, the order of termination having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, it is liable to be quashed. Letters of complaint, Annexures R4 and R5, were made by different judicial officers against the working of petitioner much after his termination and, therefore, they are of no consequence. ( 9. ) ACCORDING to my finding reached above, the termination of the petitioners service was punitive and also violated Article 311 of the Constitution. It is well settled that if the order of termination is punitive and based on the finding or misconduct, even a temporary Government servant cannot be terminated without complying with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. ( 10. ) FOR these reasons the orders dated 8. 11. 1997, Annexure A10, and 31 3. 1998, annexure A12, passed by respondent nos. 2 and 1 respectively are quashed and they are directed to reinstate the petitioner. There is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner is not gainfully employed. He shall, therefore, not be entitled for any back wages. 11. 1997, Annexure A10, and 31 3. 1998, annexure A12, passed by respondent nos. 2 and 1 respectively are quashed and they are directed to reinstate the petitioner. There is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner is not gainfully employed. He shall, therefore, not be entitled for any back wages. The petitioner will, however, be entitled for other consequential benefits such as continuity in service, etc. which are permissible under the rules. It is also made clear that this decision will not preclude the respondents from proceeding afresh with the departmental enquiry from the stage it was dropped but before proceeding with the same due regard will be paid to the acquittal of petitioner on the same charge by a Criminal Court vide Annexure A14. ( 11. ) THE petition succeeds and is allowed but without any order as to costs. Petition allowed.