JUDGMENT Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. Delay condoned. Leave Granted. 2. The judgment dated 14.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 1804 of 1990 (O&M) is called in question in this appeal by the original defendant. The brief facts leading to this Appeal are as under: The respondent was appointed as conductor in Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh-1 on temporary basis on 20.08.1979. His services were terminated as he was detected in a fraud case on 18.09.1979. Suppressing the said fact of his termination, the respondent applied to the post of clerk in the Office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab on 23.05.1980 and was appointed as clerk on ad-hoc basis. Respondent joined duty on 26.05.1980 as clerk in Cooperation Department, Punjab. Government of Punjab issued a general order dated 26.10.1982 to regularize the services of ad-hoc employees as one time measure subject to the terms and conditions contained in the said order. While processing for the regularization of the ad-hoc employees, the respondent’s name was also taken into consideration. The authorities informed that the respondent had concealed the fact that he was appointed in the Transport Department and was terminated by an order of termination, relieving the respondent from duties on 22.03.1983. 3. Thereafter the respondent filed a suit for declaration that he was a regular employee and for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the appellants from terminating his services. By the judgment dated 20.10.1984 the Trial Court i.e. Learned Senior Sub Judge, Rupnagar dismissed the suit. Thereafter the respondent approached the District Court, Rupnagar by way of first appeal. However, the respondent withdrew the said appeal with liberty to file a fresh suit for challenging the legality and validity of the order of termination dated 22.03.1983. Thereafter, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 232 of 7.12.1985 before learned Senior Sub Judge, Rupnagar for declaration that he is entitled to continue in service from 22.03.1983 and for consequential relief of salary and other emoluments. He also prayed for a declaration that the order of termination of his services dated 22.03.1983 was illegal, void and is against the principles of natural justice. The learned Senior Sub Judge Rupnagar dismissed the suit on 12.11.1987, which judgment came to be questioned by the respondent by filing Civil Appeal before the learned District Judge, Rupnagar. He also prayed for a declaration that the order of termination of his services dated 22.03.1983 was illegal, void and is against the principles of natural justice. The learned Senior Sub Judge Rupnagar dismissed the suit on 12.11.1987, which judgment came to be questioned by the respondent by filing Civil Appeal before the learned District Judge, Rupnagar. Learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, allowed the Appeal on 1112.04.1990 and set aside the judgment of the Trial Court dated 12.11.1987. The District Judge held that the respondent should be deemed in continuous service from 22.03.1983 and was entitled to consequential reliefs as if his services had not been terminated. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the appellants herein filed Regular Second Appeal No. RSA 1804 of 1990 (O&M) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, which came to be partly allowed on 14.07.2016. The High Court set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court to a certain extent i.e. in part. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus: “9. In view of these facts and circumstances, the order of the Appellate Court is set aside in so far as “deemed to be in continuous service from that date, entitled to consequential reliefs as if his services had not been terminated. The Appellant shall also entitled to costs” are concerned. The Appellant are directed to held an enquiry, in accordance with law with reference to decision taken for the purpose of regularization on 23.2.1983 after giving necessary hearing to the Respondent within a period of 6 months’ from today. 10. In the meanwhile, status of the Respondent would be deemed to be under suspension. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court passed in Managing Director Ecil versus B. Karunakar reported as 1994(2) Supp SCC 391. The Respondent is entitled for subsistence allowance as per the provisions. The same shall be calculated and disbursed within a period of 3 months and continue to pay subsistence allowance till a decision is taken in the enquiry. 11. Appeal stands disposed of.” The appellants having been aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court are before us. Heard learned counsel and perused the records. 4. Annexure P-3 is the order of termination dated 22.03.1983 issued by the Appellants against the respondent. The very document was marked as Ex. D-9 before the trial Court. 11. Appeal stands disposed of.” The appellants having been aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court are before us. Heard learned counsel and perused the records. 4. Annexure P-3 is the order of termination dated 22.03.1983 issued by the Appellants against the respondent. The very document was marked as Ex. D-9 before the trial Court. According to the counsel for the respondent as well as according to the judgments of the First and Second Appellate Courts, termination order suffers from taint of being stigmatic in nature. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the order affecting the services of an employee even though he may be ad-hoc, temporary or permanent, if is laden with some stigma has to be seen and scrutinized on the anvil of the provisions contained in Article 311 of the Constitution and the Service Rules applicable to such an employee. There is no doubt, that in case some adverse order against the public servant is to be passed, the justification of the same is to be seen through the eye of the provisions contained in the Constitution and Service Rules applicable to that servant regardless of the nature of his employment. What we have to see is as to whether the impugned order of terminating the services of the plaintiff/respondent herein suffers from any defect or violation or infraction of any Service Rules etc. Undoubtedly as pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent himself that he was appointed in Cooperation Department as clerk on ad-hoc basis on 26.05.1980 and there has been an extension of service but only on ad-hoc basis and ultimately on 22.03.1983 his services were terminated as per Annexure P3. It is not disputed by the appellants that there is a policy decision by the Government of Punjab that the services of the employees with certain length of continuous service were to be regularized as one time measure, if such employees fulfill all the conditions laid therein. In the instant case, the appellants did not however, consider it proper to regularize the services of the plaintiff/respondent because in an enquiry held by them it was found that the services of the plaintiff/respondent were terminated by the Transport Department on account of some fraud/embezzlement committed by him (which fact was suppressed by him). In any case, the appellants never mentioned such fact in the impugned order, which is as harmless and innocuous as it could be. In any case, the appellants never mentioned such fact in the impugned order, which is as harmless and innocuous as it could be. Translated copy of the termination order (Annexure P/3) as depicted in the judgment of the Trial court reads thus: “The letter No. Admn./EA3/452/414 dated 23.2.1983 from the office of the Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh conveys that in the proceedings taken in a meeting of the Departmental Selection Committee, your services have not been regularized, your temporary services are hereby terminated forthwith effect from the issue of this letter. Sd/ Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Rupnagar Endst. No.1321 Esstt/D.R.R. dated 22.3.1983” 5. The aforementioned order of termination is plain and simple, it cannot be said that there is any stigma attached to the plaintiff by the order. Under the relevant Service Rules, the services of an ad-hoc employee like the plaintiff/respondent herein are liable to be terminated at any point of time as soon as the regular incumbent joins or after a period of only six months whichever is earlier or if his work and conduct is found unsatisfactory. Even as per the appointment letter of the respondent, the services of the respondent were liable to be terminated at any point of time when regular incumbent joins or after six months of his service whichever is earlier. Thus the order of termination is in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the appointment letter. When the file was put up before the Departmental Scrutiny Committee for considering the case of the respondent for regularization of his services, the said Committee did not approve the case of the respondent for regularization. It did not mention any word in the order which depicts that the order of termination suffers from taint of being stigmatic in nature. Since nothing is mentioned in the order of termination about the act of the respondent suppressing his termination from the Transport Department on the grounds of fraud/embezzlement, it cannot be said that stigma was attached to the respondent. If it is so, no occasion arose for the Appellant-Department to conduct an enquiry afresh against the respondent. 6. In view of the above, we find that the judgment of the Trial Court is just and proper. Consequently, the judgments of the First and Second Appellate Courts are liable to be set aside and accordingly are set aside. Appeal is allowed. 6. In view of the above, we find that the judgment of the Trial Court is just and proper. Consequently, the judgments of the First and Second Appellate Courts are liable to be set aside and accordingly are set aside. Appeal is allowed. The Judgment of the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 232 of 07.12.1985 is restored. 7. However, having regard to the fact that the respondent has worked for about three years as an ad-hoc employee in the Department of Cooperation and keeping in mind that the respondent is paid about Rs.1,18,000/ towards subsistence allowance, we order that the additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/ be paid by the appellants to the respondent/employee within three months from the date of this order. We make it clear that all the cases initiated by the respondent against the appellants shall stand closed. There will be no order as to costs.