This is an appeal with a certificate granted by the judicial Commissioner. P1-hereinafter referred to as the respondent'-was appointed a constable in the Police Force of L1 by the Superintendent of Police, L2 by order dated April 18, 1954. The employment was temporary and was liable to be terminated with one month's notice. On December 6, 1957, the Superintendent of Police, informed the respondent that his services "'will be terminated with effect from 6-1-58 A. M." The respondent presented an appeal to the Chief Commissioner against the order of termination. By letter dated April 11, 1958 the respondent was informed that as he was "an Ex convict for theft, nothing can be done for him". In reply to another application addressed to the Chief Commissioner the respondent was informed by letter dated May 26, 1958, that he was already informed in connection with his previous appeal that as he was "'an Ex convict in a case of theft" he "cannot be reemployed by the Administration." The respondent then filed in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, L1, a petition for a writ praying for a writ declaring that the order of the Superintendent of Police terminating his service was "illegal" and for a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari directing the Chief Commissioner not to enforce the said order and for an order reinstating him in the Police Force of the L1 Administration with retros pective effect. The L1 Administration submitted in rejoinder that the respondent being a temporary employee of the Police Force, his services were lawfully terminated. The Judicial Commissioner of L1 held that the respondent was a temporary employee, but the order terminating the respondent's employment was invalid for it infringed the constitutional guarantee of protection of public servants which applied to temporary as well as permanent public servants. In the view of the judicial Commissioner, termination of employment of a temporary servant  will not per se be treated as a punishment of dismissal or removal, but it is open to the Court even if an order merely of termination of employment of a temporary employee is passed to ascertain whether the order was intended to be of termination simpliciter or of dismissal entailing penal consequences, and that the order dated April 11, 1958, of the Chief Commissioner passed in appeal clearly indicated that the order of the Superintendent of Police was one imposing penalty. He observed: "This reply (dated April 11, 1958) will clearly indicate that though the Superintendent of Police purported to terminate his service, he meant to dismiss the petitioner from am service as a punishment on the ground that he was an ex-convict and that it was intended that he should not be reappointed in future in any department of the Government. Thus it cannot be gainsaid that the termination was in fact a punishment for previous misconduct debarring the petitioner from being, employed even in the future, and that in passing the innocuous order (dated December 6, 1957Annexure D), the Superintendent was really camouflaging his real intention. The real intention came to light, perhaps as the result of an oversight in communicating the orders in appeal to the petitioner".