punishment that it is one of dismissal or removal under that Article. Vide Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of India('), Shyam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union of India('), State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi('), and Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India('). The question as to what would .amount to punishment for purposes of Art. 311 was also fully considered in Pa_r$botam Lal Dhingra's ca.re (supra). It was therein held that if a person had a right to continue in office either under the ·service rules or under a special agreement, a premature termination of his services · · would be a punishment. And, likewise, if the order would result in loss of benefits already earned and accrued, that would also be punishment. In the present case, the terms of employment provide for the services being terminated on a proper notice, and so, no question of permature termination arises. Rule 7 of the Security Rules preserves the rights of the employee to all the benefits of pension, gratuities and the like, to which they would be entitled under the rules. Thus, there is no forfeiture of benefits already acquired. It was stated for the appellants that a. person who was discharged, under the rules was not eligible for re-employment, and that that was punishment. But the appellants are unable to point to any rule imposing that disability. The order terminating the services under R. 3 of the Security Rules stands on the same footing as an order of discharge under R. 148, and it is neither one of dismissal nor of removal within the meaning of Art. 311. This contention also must be .overruled.
