S.H.A. Raza, J. - (1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has raised a grievance that the services of the petitioner w ere terminated as a measure of punishment for the reason that there was a scuffle between him and ore Suresh Chandra Tewari. Both had lodged F.I.R. against the said occurrence Both were awarded punishment by the concerned authorities and the petitioner alongwith Suresh Chandra Tewari was given punishment for ten days' fatigue duty on the police lines. On 23rd October, 1981 the services of Suresh Chandra Tewari were terminated. Similarly, the services of Sri Araar Singh were terminated on the same day. Sri Suresh Chandra Tewari preferred a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal. His claim petition was allowed on the ground that the order of termination was passed as a measure of punishment. The main grievance of the petitioner is that although the case of the petitioner was similar, the reference filed by him was dismissed by the same Tribunal although by another Presiding Officer. From the order dated 9-6-1987 passed by the Judicial Member in the reference filed by Suresh Chandra Tewari, it is apparent that a scuffle took place between him and Amar Singh the petitioner of the present writ petition on 13-10-1981 as a result of which both were punished departmentally and thereafter their services were terminated on 23-10-1981. In view of the judgment passed by the Tribunal it is apparent that the termination of both the above persons were founded upon the charge of misconduct, as a result of which the services of both the persons were terminated. There existed no reason for the Tribunal to have allowed the petition of one persons and dismissed the petition of the petitioner when the facts and circumstances leading to the termination of services of the petitioner as well as Suresh Chandra Tewari were similar. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that Suresh Chandra Tewari had raised before the Tribunal the ground that his services were terminated as a measure of punishment, but the present petitioner did not raise such a ground before the Tribunal. A perusal of the reference filed by the petitioner which was not annexed with the writ petition, but was presented before this Court for perusal indicate that although a vague effort has been made to submit that the termination order was passed as a measure of punishment, but the facts which were essential to be mentioned as has been mentioned in the present writ petition were not placed before the Tribunal, hence it cannot be said that the case of the petitioner was similar to the case of Suresh Chandra Tewari. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit it has been averred that after being appointed as a Firemen on 22nd July, 1988 the petitioner was transferred to Agra and during the period he remained at Agra with effect from 19-9-1979 to 10-7-1980 he was awarded seven minor punishments. Thereafter he reported for duty on 23rd July, 1980 at Fire Station, Jalaun. During his stay for three months there he was awarded punishments three times and was also warned that is case he would be found for any act of misconduct, his services would be terminated, but even after this notice he indulged into a scuffle with Suresh Chandra Tewari on 13th October, 1981 and broken the glass pans of Vehicle No. 1353 of the department as his conduct was not found satisfactory his services were terminated. Thus from the perusal of the averments made in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the main reason for terminating the services of the petitioner was the incident dated 13-10-1981. Undoubtedly, the departmental authorities have a right to terminate the services of a delinquent if the work of the delinquent is not satisfactory, but if the order of termination is grounded upon certain act of misconduct, them certainly the services of even a temporary servant can only be dispensed with after giving him an opportunity contemplated in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice i.e., only by holding a departmental inquiry, but in the present case nothing was done The services of the petitioner were terminated by an order of termination simplicity. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases that even in the case of a temporary public servant it would be open for the Court to lift the veil and see as to whether there existed facts and circumstances leading to the termination which were such from which it could be conclusively said that the order of termination was passed as a measure of punishment. From the admitted facts and circumstances of this esse it is evident that while posted at Agra the petitioner was awarded seven minor punishments, while posted at Jalaun he was awarded three minor punishments and also awarded a punishment of the fatigue drill training for seven days. He was given a notice that if he did not improve his conduct his set vices would be terminated, but instead of improving his conduct he indulged into fighting and quarrel with one Suresh Chandra Tewari on 13-10-1981 and had broken the glass pass of the vehicle. It was vehemently denied in the counter affidavit that the work and conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory. From the said averment it is clear that the question of conduct of the petitioner was the main reason for the termination of his services. Although the averment has been made in negative, but if it is translated into affirmative. it would only mean that his service were terminated on account of misconduct. In the opinion of this Court on the charge- of misconduct whenever the services of a temporary public servant are terminated, the Court can lift the veil to come to conclusion as to whether the termination simplicitor was passed upon the charge of misconduct as a measure of punishment or not. In the present case though the order of termination is innocuous and simplicitor in nature but it has been camouflaged into an order of dismissal. The U. P. Public Services Tribunal was perfectly justified in allowing the claim petition of Suresh Chandra Tewari whose services were terminated mainly on the charge of misconduct. In the present case from the admitted facts it is evident that the case of the petitioner was similar to that of Suresh Chandra Tewari. His services were also terminated on charges of misconduct as a measure of punishment, hence the order of termination of services of the petitioner can not be sustained.
(2.) In view of what has been indicated hereinabove the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order of termination dated 23-10-1981, order, dated 21-12-1983 and order dated 12-9-1986 (Annexures-3, 4 and 7 respectively). A writ in the nature of mandamus is also issued commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits of pay and allowances and other benefits in accordance with Rules. In the circumstances of this case there would be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.;