T.S.Misra, J. - (1.) The opposite party No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Boring Mechanic in the Minor Irrigation Department in a temporary capacity by an order dated December 2, 1965. He was transferred to Gonda by an order dated March 21, 1969 w here he joined on June 13, 1969. Later on he was asked to Join duties at Balrampur Block where he served in the capacity of Assistant Boring Mechanic. It has been said in the instant petition filed on behalf of the State of U. P., that the work and conduct of the opposite party No. 1 at Balrairpur Block was not satisfactory and he failed to achieve the target of the work there. A show'-cause notice was hence given to him as to why his services be not terminated. It is said that the opposite party No. I did not give any reply to the same. The work of the opposite party No. 1 also remained unsatisfactory while posted in Block Katia as Assistant Boring Mechanic. Ultimately his services w;ere terminated by an order dated September 27, 1971. The opposite Party No. 1 challenged that order by filing a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Gonda. During the pendency of that suit the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act was enforced; hence the suit stood transferred to the U. P. Public Services Tribunal. The matter was contested there and the Public Services Tribunal allow ed the claim petition. The State of U. P. being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition has been opposed and a counter-affidavit has been filed. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the State of U. P.
(2.) I have gone through all the documents placed before me and I have heard the learned counsel for the State as also the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1.
(3.) A perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, a certified copy of which is Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition would show' that the Tribunal allow ed the claim petition on the ground that no satisfactory reason was disclosed in the written statement for terminating temporary employment of Virendra Kumar the opposite party No. 1, hence the termination order was not sustainable. The Tribunal in support of its findings placed reliance on The Manager Government Branch Press v. D. B. Belliappa, 1979 (1) SLR 351 . The learned counsel for the State submitted that the opposite party No. 1 in his plaint had clearly admitted that he was informed of the reason of termination of his employment by the authority concerned when he made inquiry from him and the reason was that the work of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory. The learned standing counsel referred me to paragraph 6 of the plaint, a copy of which is Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. In that paragraph of the plaint the opposite party No. 1 had stated that his services had been terminated by the order dated September 25, 1971 without serving on him any charge-sheet or asking him to show-cause as to why his services be not terminated and when he made inquiries as to why his services were terminated he was told that his work was not satisfactory, that he was in disciplined and was negligent and careless in the performance of his duties and that his reputation was not good; hence he was not fit to be retained in service. He also said in the same paragraph of the plaint that his services had been mala fide terminated.;