Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 252 of 1969. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19 8 68 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Appeal No. 254/65. G. N. Dikshit and M. V. Goswami for the Appellant. section C. Manchanda	 section C. Patel and Trilok Singh Arora for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK	 J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated August 19	 1968 dismissing a second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration. The respondent was appointed as a Sub Inspector of Police in a temporary post in 1955. He was discharged from service on July 13	 1957. A writ petition filed by him in the Allahabad High Court was allowed on August 4	 1959	 and accordingly on December 15	 1959 he was reinstated in service. Thereafter	 on January 21	 1960 his services were terminated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police	 Agra Range	 Agra. On March 13	 1963 the respondent instituted a suit for a declaration that the order dated January 21	 1960 was illegal and void and that he continued as Sub Inspector of Police in the Uttar Pradesh Police Service. It was alleged that on a false complaint made against him in respect of the custody and detention of one Smt. Phoolmati	 an enquiry had been made in consequence of which the appellant had been arbitrarily and illegally discharged from service on July 13	 1957. It was pleaded that although he was reinstated on the success of his writ petition in the High Court	 his services were terminated a mere five weeks later although no ground had arisen since for doing so. It was asserted that the order of January 21	 1960 was passed as a simple order of termination in order to avoid a departmental enquiry under section 7 of the Police Act	 which enquiry if held would have enabled him to expose the falsity of the allegations levelled against him. The suit was contested by the appellant	 who maintained that the termination of the respondent 's services was not by way of punishment hor motivated by malice	 and that it was a simple termination of the services of a temporary government servant on the ground that they were no longer required by the State. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif	 Etah and the decree was affirmed in appeal and second appeal. The High Court	 in second appeal	 took the view that where an enquiry was instituted by a superior authority into a misconduct alleged against a government 1128 servant	 the resulting termination of service was by way of punishment because it attached a stigma or amounted to a reflection on the competence of the government servant and affected his future career. The High Court held that the findings recorded during the enquiry on the original complaint against the respondent were responsible for the order terminating the respondent 's services	 and it affirmed that the order was vitiated by mala fides. Attacking the findings of the High Court	 learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the first place the order terminating the respondent 's services had not been made by way of punishment	 but was an order of termination simpliciter passed in accordance with the rules applicable to temporary government servants. In the second place	 it is said	 if the order is attributed to the complaint against the respondent concerning his conduct relating to Smt. Phoolmati it was open to the Deputy Inspector General of Police to take the circumstances of the case into account for the purpose of considering the suitability of the respondent for continuing in service. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that an enquiry had been originally instituted against the respondent which had resulted in an order terminating his services and	 he urges	 after the order of the High Court quashing his discharge on the ground of violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution it was obligatory on the superior authority	 in case it proposed to terminate the respondent 's services	 to institute a proper and complete departmental enquiry	 providing an opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence and be heard in his defence	 and only thereafter could it make an order against the respondent. We are of the opinion that the appellant is right on both counts. Considered as an order made without reference to the earlier proceeding against the respondent	 the impugned order cannot be regarded as one of punishment. After the original order of discharge was quashed by the High Court	 the respondent was reinstated in service. He was even allowed an increment to his salary. The Deputy Inspector General of Police made the impugned order subsequently terminating his services on the ground that they were no longer required. The services were terminated on payment of one month 's salary in lieu of notice under the "general rules for termination of service of temporary government servants". The Deputy Inspector General of Police was examined as a witness in the suit	 and throughout he maintained that he terminated the respondent 's services because they were not required any more and that in making the order he did not intend to punish the respondent. The evidence also discloses that no personal motive had influenced the order. It was open to the superior authority to terminate the respondent 's services on the ground on which it did so. 1129 Assuming	 however	 that the impugned order was made in the background of the allegations against the respondent concerning his behaviour with Smt. Phoolmati	 we see no reason in law why a departmental enquiry should be necessary before the respondent 's services could be terminated. It appears from the material before us that it was merely a preliminary enquiry which was made by the Superintendent of Police into the allegations made against the respondent 's conduct concerning the woman. No departmental enquiry by way of disciplinary proceedings was instituted	 no charge was framed	 and the formal procedure characterising a disciplinary proceeding was never adopted. The Deputy Inspector General of Police passed the original order dated July 13	 1957 discharging the respondent from the police force on the ground that he had behaved in a reprehensible manner	 was not likely to make a useful police officer and was unfit for further retention in a disciplined force. The original order plainly attached a stigma to the respondent 's record of service	 and it is because of the specific grounds set forth in the termination order that the High Court considered the respondent entitled to the benefit of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution	 and quashed the order. Now the order having been quashed	 the position reverts to what it was when the Deputy Inspector General of Police received the report of the Superintendent of Police on the Preliminary enquiry made by him. There was nothing to prevent the Deputy Inspector General from deciding that instead of instituting disciplinary proceedings against the government servant he should consider whether the government servant was suitable for retention in service. The case law on the point has been considered elaborately by one of us (Jaswant Singh	 J.) in State of U.P. vs Ram Chandra Trivedi(1) and reference has been made in this behalf to Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs The Union of India(2)	 Jagdish Mitter vs Union of India(3) and State of Punjab & Anr. vs Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur(4). It is apparent from the facts of this case that if the impugned order be considered as made in the light of the allegations against the respondent concerning the woman	 the conduct of the respondent constituted a motive merely for making the order and was not the foundation of that order. In this connection what has been stated by this Court in Union of India & Ors. vs R. section Dhaba.(5) State of Bihar & Ors. vs Shive Bhikshuk Mishra(6) and R. section Sial vs The State of U.P. & Ors.(7) appers relevant. That it was not intended 1130 to take punitive action against the respondent for his misbehaviour with Smt. Phoolmati is evident from the circumstance that thereafter the respondent was allowed an increment to his salary and was regarded as in service for all purposes. The High Court	 it seems to us	 did not have regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case	 and appears to have assumed that the respondent 's services were terminated as a measure of punishment. The High Court relied on The State of Bihar vs Gopi Kishore Prasad(1) and Madan Gopal vs The State of Punjab(2). Both cases are distinguishable. In the former	 the government servant was discharged from service because he was found to be corrupt and the order terminating his services branded him a dishonest and incompetent officer. In the latter	 the government servant had been served with a charge sheet that he had demanded and received illegal gratification and the Court found that the proceeding	 consequent to which the termination order was made	 was intended for the purpose of taking punitive action. We are satisfied that the considerations which prevailed with the High Court in reaching its findings on the application of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and the bona fides of the superior authority in making the impugned order are not warranted in law and on the material before us. Accordingly	 the appeal is allowed	 the judgment and decree of the High Court dated August 19	 1968 are set aside and the respondent 's suit is dismissed	 but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. S.R. Appeal allowed.

The respondent was appointed as a Sub Inspector of police in a temporary post in 1955. He was discharged from service on July 13	 1957. A Writ Petition filed by him in the Allahabad High Court was allowed on August 4	 1959 and consequently he was re instated in service on December 15	 1959. Thereafter	 on January 21	 1960 his services were terminated on the ground that they were no longer required by the State. A suit for declaration that the said order of termination was null and void was decreed in his favour by the trial court which was affirmed in appeal and also by the High Court in second appeal. Allowing the State appeal by special leave the Court	 ^ HELD: 1. The considerations which prevailed with the High Court in reaching its findings on the application of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the bona fides of the superior authority in making the impugned order of termination simpliciter are not warranted in law. [1130D] 2. The order terminating the services was order of termination simpliciter passed in accordance with the rules applicable to temporary Government servants. After the original order of discharge was quashed by the High Court	 the respondent was reinstated	 allowed increment in pay and one month 's salary in lieu of notice under the 'general rules for termination of services of temporary government servants was also given. [1128F G] 3. It was open to the superior authority to terminate the respondent 's services on the ground on which it did so. And the evidence disclosed no personal motive had influenced the order or that it was passed by way of punishment. A departmental enquiry is not required under the law. Instead of instituting disciplinary proceedings against the government servant	 the suitability for retention in service could be decided. [1128H	 1129A	 E] State of U.P.v. Ram Chandra Trivedi; 	 ; Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs The Union of India	 	 Jagdish Mitter vs Union of India	 A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 449 and State of Punjab & Anr. vs Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur	 ; ; referred to. Union of India & Ors. vs R. section Dhaba	 	 State of Bihar & Ors. vs Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra and R. section Sial vs The State of U.P. and Ors.	 ; applied. The State of Bihar vs Gopi Kishore Prasad	 A.I.R. 1960 SC 689 and Madan Gopal vs The State of Punjab	 [1963] 3 SCR 716; distinguished. 1127