Judgment : (A.P. Lavande, J.) : Heard Mr. N. Costa Frias for the petitioner and Mr. E. Afonso for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 25th March, 2013 issued by respondent No.1, which reads thus: “It has been brought to the notice of the undersigned that while discharging the duties as Senior Resident in the Department of Orthopaedics, Dr. Lakimchand N. Ambapkar has failed to maintain absolute integrity at all times and misbehaved with the superiors by using harsh language and constantly remained absent on duty, which also amounts to indiscipline. He is also found to be irregular on duty despite of several warnings in written & verbal. Whereas, an Non-Cognizable complaint N.C. Case No.229/12, u/s 504, 427 IPC has been registered at Aggasaim Police Station, dated 25/05/2012 against Dr. Lakimchand N. Ambapkar, Senior Resident in the Department of Orthopaedics on account of arguing with then A.A.O. Mr. Mangaldas Naik and also breaking the glasses of the cabin of the same. In view of the same a memo was issued to him, who replied the same denying that the incident happened accidentally and he apologized for the entire event occurred on 25/05/2012. Whereas complaints letters received from the Department of Orthopaedics dated 22/08/2012, 11/01/2013, 28/02/2013, 04/03/2013, 01/03/2013 & 11/03/2013, all in regards to him informing that he is irregular on duties, misbehaves with his superior, is not sincere on his duty, remains absent without intimating the office. For the act committed by him, the Prof & HOD of Orthopaedics had issued to him a note and had asked him to give explanation within 48 hrs. But till date no explanation has been received by the office of the HOD nor the office of the Dean. Now, therefore taking into consideration all the irregularities mentioned above, Dr. Lakimchand N. Ambapkar is hereby given notice under Rule 5(1) of CCS Temporary Service Rules, 1965 that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of period of one month from the date on which this notice is served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him.” 4. Lakimchand N. Ambapkar is hereby given notice under Rule 5(1) of CCS Temporary Service Rules, 1965 that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of period of one month from the date on which this notice is served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him.” 4. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the petition, are as under: By an order dated 30th April, 2012, the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis to the post of Senior Resident in the Department of Orthopaedics with effect from 26/3/2012 till 25/3/2014. The appointment was for a period of three years, taking into consideration the services earlier rendered by him. During this period, he was issued memo by the Head of Department, stating that he was irregular in his duties, and he was remaining absent without intimating the office. The petitioner was given the impugned notice under Section 5(1) of CCS Temporary Service Rules, 1965 (“the Rules” for short), intimating him that his services would stand terminated with effect from the date of the expiry of period of one month from the date on which it was served on him or tendered. The petitioner filed the present petition on 6th May, 2013 and by Order dated 8th May, 2013, this Court granted interim relief, restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned notice. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the termination is punitive, which is evident from the notice itself and, therefore, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without holding an inquiry, since the termination is punitive. 6. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Shri Swapnil Naik, Director Administration in Goa Medical College at Bambolim, in which it has been stated that the petitioner is ill-tempered and insults his colleagues on duty and other staff. On 25th May, 2012, he abused the Assistant Accounts Officer and broke the glass of his cabin. A police complaint of the incident was filed at Agacaim Police Station and a Memo was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner tendered his apology. It is the case of the deponent that the conduct of the petitioner is unsatisfactory and unsuitable. The case of the petitioner about his harassment and discrimination by the superiors has been denied by the deponent. Thereafter, the petitioner tendered his apology. It is the case of the deponent that the conduct of the petitioner is unsatisfactory and unsuitable. The case of the petitioner about his harassment and discrimination by the superiors has been denied by the deponent. In short, it is the case of the respondents that the appointment of the petitioner being temporary and the termination of his services not being punitive, the termination made under Rule 5(1) of the Rules cannot be said to be violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 7. Mr. Costa Frias appearing for the petitioner submitted that from a bare perusal of the impugned notice, it is evident that the termination is punitive and as such, the stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit which is contrary to the impugned notice cannot be countenanced. Learned Counsel submitted that since the termination is punitive, and not in terms of Rule 5(1) of the Rules, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and set aside In support of his submissions, Mr. Costa Frias relied upon the following judgments: (1) Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India , AIR 1958 SC 36 ; and (2) The State of Punjab and another vs. Sukh Raj Bahadur, AIR 1968 SC 1089 ; and (3) The Director, Defence Research and Development Laboratories, Hyderabad vs. C. Pandu, Instrument Mechanic, Defence Research and Development Laboratories, Hyderabad, AIR 1977 AP 4 . 8. Per contra, Mr. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents reiterated the stand taken in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and submitted that termination of services of the petitioner is on the ground of unsatisfactory performance and there is no stigma attached to the petitioner on account of termination of his services. He, therefore, submitted that the termination of the petitioner's services effected in terms of Rule 5(1) of the Rules is justified and is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions, Mr. Afonso relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs. The Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 1854. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgments relied upon. 10. In support of his submissions, Mr. Afonso relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs. The Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 1854. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgments relied upon. 10. What emerges from the judgments cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Counsel for the respondents is as follows: (1) The services of a temporary servant or a probationer can be terminated under the rules of his employment and such termination without anything more would not attract the operation of Article 311 of the Constitution; (2) The circumstances preceding or attendant on the order of termination of services have to be examined in each case, the motive behind it being immaterial; (3) If the order visits the public servant with any evil consequences or casts an aspersion against his character or integrity, it must be considered to be one by way of punishment, no matter whether he was a mere probationer or a temporary servant. (4) An order of termination of service in unexceptionable form preceded by an enquiry launched by the superior authorities only to ascertain whether the public servant should be retained in service does not attract the operation of Article 311 of the Constitution. 11. In the present case, admittedly, no preliminary inquiry has been conducted by the respondents. A bare perusal of the impugned notice discloses that it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner has failed to maintain absolute integrity at all times and he has misbehaved with his superiors by using harsh language. This fact mentioned in the impugned notice itself casts stigma on the petitioner. Although stand has been taken in the reply that the termination is not on account of misconduct, the notice itself discloses that failure to maintain absolute integrity is one of the factors which led to termination of the services of the petitioner. By no stretch of imagination the termination can be said to be not punitive. Having regard to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, if termination of a probationer or a temporary employee casts stigma on him, the same has to be construed as punitive and is not protected under Rule 5(1) of the Rules. 12. By no stretch of imagination the termination can be said to be not punitive. Having regard to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, if termination of a probationer or a temporary employee casts stigma on him, the same has to be construed as punitive and is not protected under Rule 5(1) of the Rules. 12. As stated above, a bare perusal of the impugned notice discloses that the same casts stigma on the integrity of the petitioner. Therefore, in our view, termination of the services of the petitioner by invoking Rule 5(1) of the Rules is not sustainable in law. 13. Judgment in the case of Champaklal Chimanlal Shah (supra), relied upon by the respondents does not help the respondents inasmuch as in the said case it was a termination simpliciter and the termination order did not disclose that the integrity of the appellant was doubted. 14. In our view, therefore, the impugned notice, terminating the services of the petitioner cannot be sustained in law and as such, liable to be quashed and set aside and is, hereby, quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. 15. It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the respondents taking any action against the petitioner, if they so desire, in accordance with law.