Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed in a temporary capacity as an orderly/waterman in the respondents college till February, 1974. Since the post was sanctioned for further period of one year at a time, the petitioners services were also continued in a temporary capacity. The petitioners services were terminated on August 28, 1976 but the petitioner made representations and apologized for his misconducts. He was accordingly reinstated on September 20, 1976. Ultimately, in January 1977, his services were again terminated by giving him a months notice. The petitioner challenged this order before the Public Services Tribunal which claim was, however, dismissed. He has come to this Court.
(2.) The respondents case is that there were a large number of complaints against the petitioner and his work was also very unsatisfactory. His services were accordingly terminated. There was no mala fide and no grudge against him. The Tribunal has also found that the petitioners services were temporary. He had no right to any post. His services were terminated in exercise of powers of termination of service of a temporary employee. In my opinion, it cannot be said that the impugned order of termination of services was passed by way of punishment.
(3.) The petition has no substance and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.;