P.P.Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by Kamlesh Kumar praying for a writ, order, rule or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22 -1 -1991 terminating his services and also a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the discharge of his duties on the post of Followers. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 2 on 5 -7 -1987, on the post of Follower. His appointment was temporary, but his services were likely to be made permanent in due course of time. Respondent No. 2 by his order dated 22 -1 -1991 terminated the services of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by giving him notice that his services are no more required on the said post of Follower. According to the petitioner, the said order is arbitrary, illegal, and also contrary to the provisions of the Rules. A false and fictitious report by one Smt. Usha, wife of Suresh, resident of Granganj, Fatehgarh, on 12 -1 -1991, is said to have been filed against the petitioner with the allegation that he committed rape with her niece, Km. Rekha. On the basis of that report a case under Section 376, I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner as Crime No. 15/1991 of Police Station Kotwali, Fatehgarh. It appears to the petitioner that the aforesaid criminal proceedings, against him, have lead respondent No. 2 to terminate his services by way of punishment. The contention of the petitioner is that since the criminal proceedings have been launched against the petitioner, it was incumbent upon respondent No. 2 to have conducted disciplinary proceedings against him before passing the impugned order has been said to be wholly arbitrary as the petitioner has been denied an opportunity of hearing.
(2.) ON his own admission, the petitioner was a temporary employee appointed on the post of Follower oh 5 -7 -1987. There is also no dispute that the terms and conditions of his employment were regulated by the Rules of 1975. In terms of these rules his services were liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. A temporary Government servant has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated by giving him one month's notice without assigning any reason, under the rules. There is, however, no bar to dismiss such a temporary Government servant by way of punishment also. If the appointing authority is satisfied that the work and conduct of such 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 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. In case the appointing authority decides to take punitive action, it may hold a formal enquiry by framing charge and giving opportunity to the temporary Government servant in accordance with the provisions of Article 311 of the constitution. I agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the form of the order is not conclusive and it is open to the court to determine the true nature of the order to ascertain whether the action taken against the temporary Government servant is punitive in nature. In determining the true nature of the order, the court has to apply two tests, viz. (1) whether the temporary Government servant had a right to the post or the rank, or (2) where he has been visited with evil consequences, and if either of the test is satisfied, it must be held that the order of termination of a temporary Government servant has no right to hold the post, his termination per se does not visit him with any evil consequences, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.C. Dhingra v. Union of India : 1958 SCR 828.
(3.) THE petitioner being a temporary Government servant, had no right to hold the post. The competent authority has terminated his services by an innocuous order of termination without casting any stigma on him. This order does not indict the petitioner for any misconduct. No preliminary enquiry or disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The competent authority appears to have exercised its power to terminate the services of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. No charges were ever framed against him, no official was appointed to hold the departmental enquiry nor any departmental enquiry as such was held against him. Instead, the competent authority chose to terminate the petitioner's service in exercise of its powers under the relevant rules applicable to the petitioner. The competent authority never intended to dismiss the petitioner from service. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order terminating the service of the petitioner was in the nature of punishment. His services have been terminated in accordance with the rules applicable to him by an innocuous order without casting any stigma on him. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned order which may all for any interference in this writ petition, and the petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is summarily dismissed at the admission stage itself.;