- (1.) The respondent was temporarily and provisionally appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster for a period of four months from 9/1/1978 to 8/5/1978. The provisional appointment of the respondent was extended for a further period of three months up to 8/8/1978. It was again extended for three months from 9/8/1978 to 8/11/1978. During this period, by a Memorandum dated 23/9/1978, the services of the respondent were terminated with immediate effect. The order of termination is not on record but from the narration of the facts in the impugned judgment, it appears that this order of termination was under Rule 6 of the Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. On 30/9/1978, the respondent was served with an additional memo informing him that in the order of 23/9/1978, after the words "immediate effect", the words "on administrative grounds" are added. The respondent made a representation against this termination but the Director of Postal Services, Kerala upheld the order of termination by his order dated 22/12/1978. The respondent filed a writ petition, before the High court. By the impugned judgment, the division bench of the High court allowed the writ petition and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits. The Department has filed the present appeal.
(2.) The orders of appointment relating to the respondent show that the appointment was temporary and provisional. It was made for a short period. The order of appointment further stated, "shri E. Kunhiraman Nair isinformed that the appointment is purely provisional and his services are liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason and that his services will be governed by the P and T ED Agents, (C and S) Rules, 1964". The order of termination in the present case is an order of termination simpliciter. The initial order did not contain any reason. By an amendment made a week later, on 30/9/1976, the words "on administrative grounds" were added, presumably in the light of Rule 6 of the Post and Telegraph Extra Departmental Agents, (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. Rule 6 provides as follows: "Termination of services.-The services of an employee shall be liable to termination by the appointing authority at any time without notice for generally unsatisfactory work within three years from the date of appointment or any administrative ground unconnected with his conduct. "
(3.) The termination of the employment of the respondent on administrative grounds is, therefore, an order of termination simpliciter. It does not cast any stigma on the respondent. It is well settled that such termination will not attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In the case of State of U. P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla this court observed that: "A temporary government servant has no right to hold the post. Whenever, the competent authority is satisfied that the work and conduct of a temporary servant is not satisfactory or that his continuance in service is not in public interest on account of his unsuitability, misconduct or inefficiency, it may either terminate his services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the service or the relevant rules or it may decide to take punitive action against the temporary government servant. If the services of a temporary government servant is terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of service, it will not visit him with any evil consequences. ";