- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-2-2000 of a learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 26-7-1990 ter minating his services was dismissed.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. The appellant was appointed as Gram Panchayat Adhikari on 8-7-1983 and his services were terminated by the order dated 26-7-1990. In the appointment order, it was mentioned that the appoint ment of the appellant was purely tem porary and it can be terminated at any time without any prior notice. The services of the appellant have been terminated in ac cordance with U. P. Temporary Govern ment Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. There was a clear term in the appointment order that his service was temporary and could be terminated at any time without any notice. Being a tem porary employee, the appellant had ac quired no right to the post. The appointing authority exercised his power con templated under Rules 1975 and ter minated the service of the appellant. WE do not find any error or illegality in the order by which the services of the appel lant have been terminated. Learned counsel has submitted that though the order is innocuously worded but in fact the services of the ap pellant had been terminated by way of punishment as prior to the passing of the impugned order a notice was served upon him on 11-7-1990 wherein certain charges were levelled and he was asked to give explanation of the same within three days. A copy of this notice has been filed as Annexure 7 lo the affidavit. It is not in dispute that no formal departmental en quiry had been initiated against the appel lant. A preliminary enquiry in the nature of fact finding enquiry in order to judge suitability of the appellant for being retained in service was held. After getting reply of the appellant the appointing authority took the decision that services of the appellant were no longer required and consequently passed the order terminat ing his services. The enquiry held was merely for the purpose of judging suitability of the appellant for being retained in service. It was not a formal departmental enquiry for establishing or proving any charge against him. In such a case, it cannot be held that the services of the appellant had been terminated by way of punishment. In Bishan Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 363, the petitioner joined Haryana Civil Service as a probationer on 8-12-1966. He was served with two show cause notice on 22-10-1968 and 18-6-1969 asking him to explain certain allegations to which he gave reply. He was served a third show cause notice by the Chief Secretary on 19-6-1969. After considering his explanations, his services were ter minated by an innocuously worded order dated 11-9-1969. It was urged that his ser vices had been terminated by way of punishment. The court repelled the attack with the observation that where the inten tion behind an enquiry against the probationer was not to hold a full departmental trial to punish but a sum mary enquiry to decide only suitability to continue in service and the probationer was given ample opportunity to answer in writing whatever was alleged against him in show cause notices, the communication of order of termination following such summary enquiry could not be said to be an order of punishment which entitled him to a full-fledged departmental enquiry contemplated by Article 311. In O. N. G. C. v. Dr. Md. S. Ikander Ali, AIR 1980 SC 1242, a departmental enquiry was held against the employee during the period of his probation as there were reports against him but the enquiry was not proceeded with and his services were ter minated. It was urged that there was violation of Article 311 of the Constitu tion. The court rejected the contention on behalf of the employee by observing that even if misconduct, negligence, in efficiency might be the motive or induc ing factor which influenced the employer to terminate the services of the employee, a power which the employer, undoubtedly possessed, even so as under the terms of appointment of the employee such a power flowed from the contract of service, termination of services could not he termed as penalty or punishment, In Ravindra Kumar v. U. P. State Handloom Corporation, 1987 SC 2408, the appel lant was placed under suspension on 22-11-1982 by an order which mentioned that he was responsible for misconduct, dereliction of duty, mismanagement and showing fictitious production of cloth. On 1-2-1983 the suspension order was revoked and on 10-2-1983 a simple order terminating his services was passed. It was held that the order of termination was in innocuous terms and did not cast any stigma nor visited the employee with any evil consequences. It was further held that the termination order being not founded on a misconduct was not open to challenge. Similarly in K. M. Institute v. Panduranj Godwalkar and another, AIR 1993 SC 392, it was held as under: "but whenever the service of an employee is terminated during the period of probation or while his appointment is on temporary basis, by an order of termination simpliciter after some preliminary enquiry it can not be held that as some enquiry had been made against him before issuance of order of termination it really amounted to his removal from service on a charge, as such penal in nature. "
(3.) HAVING given our careful con sideration to the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge which may warrant interference in appeal. The special appeal is dismissed summarily. Appeal dismissed. .;