SUNIL AMBWARII, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.8.1992 passed by Regional Employment Officer, Meerut his services have been terminated under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules. 1975 after making him entitled to one month's pay, and the order dated 6.6.1992 by which an adverse entry was awarded to him in the year 1991 -92.
(2.) I have heard Counsel for the petitioner and learned Scanding Counsel. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste. He was appointed as a Peon after interview on temporary basis in the City Employment Exchange, Ghaziabad. He was transferred to several places and that during relevant time he was posted in the office of City Employment Exchange Officer. Hapur, District -Ghaziabad. A charge -sheet dated 5.8.1991 was given to him for unauthorised absence, on several occasions for long periods, late arrival on duty, negligence of work on duty. Failure to carry out the orders, doubtful integrity, directly sending the representation to higher officers and ministers, wrongful claim of House Rent Allowance etc. The petitioner submitted his reply on 19.8.1991. No inquiry was conducted and that it is alleged by the petitioner that the inquiry was dropped. The petitioner was thereafter awarded adverse entry for the year 1991 -92 by order dated 6.6.1992 to the effect that he leaves Headquarter without seeking permission of the competent authority and is a habitual absentee, his integrity is not beyond doubt and that he has given several wrong statement about the office to the newspapers and thus he is an employee who does not maintain discipline. The petitioner submitted his representation on 28.7.1992. It is alleged by the petitioner in para 13 of the writ petition that in response to a letter from the Director of Employment Exchange. U.P., Lucknow to City Employment Exchange Officer, Hapur recommending the petitioner's name for confirmation by his letter dated 3.8.1992, and that as such the termination of services by order dated 24.8.1992 under Rules of 1975 is arbitrary, malaflde and illegal.
(3.) A counter affidavit of Sri R. L. Singh Assistant Employment Exchange Officer, Ghaziabad has been filed stating that the petitioner was a temporary employee. His work was never satisfactory. There were always complaints against him and he was guilty of dereliction in duty for which he was given several warnings. The impugned order does not cause any stigma upon him. The petitioner was awarded adverse entry in 1988 -89 and thereafter in 1991 -92. A supplemen ­tary counter affidavit of the same officer has been filed in which he has stated that prior to August. 1991 at several times explanations were called from the petitioner regarding his illegal activities, dereliction of duties, carelessness towards Government work and that several warnings were also given to him. He was awarded adverse entry in the year 1988 -89 and 1990 -91, with regards to letter of recommending confirmation it has been stated that the Directors, Training and Employment, U.P. vide his letter dated 31.7.1992 sought information in prescribed proforma regarding the quota for promotion on the post of class -Ill so that the same may be considered in a proposed meeting going to be held in the Directorate on 26.8.1992. The said Employment Officer sent a letter dated 11.8.1992 submitting information regarding the employees and that a letter dated 18.8.1992 was again sent giving the said information. He had never recommended confirmation or regulansation of class -IV employee. The copies of the aforesaid letters have been annexed to the supplementary affidavit.;