Mehar Singh, J.
1. The petitioner, Parshotam Lal Gupta, in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was appointed a temporary clerk in the office of Malaria Officer, Amritsar, according to letter, Annexure 'A', on March 25, 1958.
2. On October, 28, 1963, the Malaria Officer of Gurgaon, where the petitioner was then posted, asked for his explanation in regard to two days' pay for leave of those days in September, 1963, having been wrongly paid to one social worker. In the petition the petitioner gives one version and then says that the Malaria Officer had his own version. On October 29, 1963, he was further asked by the Malaria Officer to explain his conduct on the previous day when he had to explain the matter of wrong payment to the social worker for two days of the latter's leave without pay. The petitioner had in the meantime written an express-delivery letter to the Director of Health Services on October 28, 1963, about the same incident. He was also required on October 30, 1963, to explain how he had made a direct representation to the Director without sending it through proper channel. The petitioner says that he gave his replies to the communications asking for his explanation.
3. On December 19, 1963, the Director of Health Services sent a memorandum to the Malaria Officer, Gurgaon, copy Annexure 'I', saying--'The services of Shri Parshotam Lal Gupta, Clerk of your office are hereby terminated with immediate effect. He may be relieved immediately and paid one month's pay in lieu of notice under intimation to this office.' With this was added under the signatures of the Director this endorsement--
'Copies forwarded to all Zonal Officers and Malaria Officers, in the State, for information. They should keep a note that Shri Parshotam Lal Gupta, whose particulars are given below, should not be employed in any of the Malaria Units:
Name: Shri Parshotam Lal Gupta.
Father's name: Shri Dina Nath Gupta.
Address: House No. 1217, Gali Arayan,
Near Subash Gali, Gurdaspur City.
Reasons for discharge: Insubordination.'
A copy of the memorandum addressed by the Director to the Malaria Officer, Gurgaon, Annexure 'H', not with the endorsement accompanying that memorandum as in Annexure 'I', was forwarded to the petitioner by the Malaria Officer under his endorsement, dated December 21, 1963, informing the petitioner that 'his services are hereby terminated today on 21-12-1963 A. N. He should handover his charge and get the relieving order.' The petitioner was also informed that he could get his pay in lieu of one month's notice on December 24, 1963, as it was not possible to pay on December 22 and 23, 1963, being holidays.
4. It was after that that the petitioner filed the writ petition questioning the constitutional validity of the order terminating his services on the ground that as the order was visited with a penalty inasmuch as chances of his future employment were jeopardised, so it amounts to his dismissal from service, and not mere termination of his services in the terms of his contract of employment as a temporary employee, and that as the provisions of Article 311(1) of the Constitution have not been complied with so the impugned order is constitutionally not valid.
5. With the order of the termination of the temporary employment of the petitioner, endorsement followed from the Director that his employment was to be barred in the remaining Malaria Units because his services had been terminated on account of insubordination. This obviously is a penal consequence directly emanating from the order terminating the services of the petitioner. On this consideration that order obviously is not an order merely terminating the services of the petitioner as a temporary employee within the scope of the terms and conditions of his employment, but it is an order from which flow penal consequences inasmuch as future employment in his case is jeopardised so it is an order of dismissal. Admittedly there has been no compliance with Article 311(1). The only argument that is pressed on behalf of the respondents (The State of Punjab through the Director of Health Services, and the Malaria Officer of Gurgaon) is that the order of the Director only operated to debar the petitioner from future employment in any Malaria Unit, leaving it open for him to seek employment even under the Directorate of Health Services in other sections of it and also to obtain an employment in any other Department of the Government. This is a misconceived approach for (a) it is as much a penal consequence to debar a man from some sources of employment which attracts Article 311(1) as to debar him totally from any employment, and (b) the substantial effect of the order would not only be confined to the Malaria Units but is bound to affect other chances of employment of the petitioner, because the endorsement on the order terminating his services says that the same were put an end to on account of insubordination of the petitioner. This is a case of dismissal. There has been no compliance with Article 311(1) of the Constitution. The order terminating the services of the petitioner cannot be maintained. It is consequently quashed. There is, however, no order in regard to costs in this petition.
6. P. C. Pandit, J.: