R. L. Gulati, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed in the Consoli dation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh as a Consolidator on February 5, 1960. At the material time he was posted as Consoli dator in Mohammadabad Unit in Azamgarh. It appears that some adverse remarks were made against him in the inspection note re corded by R.B. Chaturvedi, Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Azamgarh on February 19, 1968. A copy of the inspection note was sent to the petitioner on April 18, 1968. On April 27, 1968 he was asked to submit his explanation atonce. He submitted his explanation on May 20, 1968. By an order dated May 24, 1968 his services were ter minated, be giving him one month's pay in lieu of notice. The peti tioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the order of termination has been passed against him by way of punishment without affording him an opportunity to defend himself as required by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. This grievance of the petitioner appears to be, fully justified. The order of termination does not contain any reason and purports to have been passed in accordance with the service conditions of the petitioner, he being a temporary, employee. But the attending circumstances and the sequence of events proceeding to the impugned order leave no room for doubt that it was not a termi nation simpliciter occasioned by departmental exigencies but an order of punishment because of the adverse remarks given to him in the inspection note. The inspection note is a long one but the relevant portion is to the following effect:- "I made checking of the entries in respect of Sri Jagdish Prasad, consolidator from the month of November, 1967 (November 16, 1967 to November 21, 1967). In this diary the consolidator has shown four days with C.O. in connection with the disposal of the cases. When asked to explain the work he has been doing there, he is not able to tell me the work which he has done..... Obviously the consolidator has wasted his time and has done no thing. He has made an entry just to save his skin and is shown that he has utilised the time. In the second fortnight of the month of December, 1967 the consolidator has shown 5 days in his diary that he has been helping the C.O. in disposal of cases. After Dec., 1967 the diary is blank. There is no entry of the day, today work done by the consolidator. . . .". On November 24 and 25, the Consolidator has been engaged in the disposal of P.C.P. applications of village Chandani. From the perusal of the register of village Chandani, I find there were only three applications and none of them has so far been disposed of. There is no statement of the applicant and there is no report of the Consolidation nor is there any endorsement of the A.C.O. Obviously the consolidator has shown Farzi Kargujari without actually doing the work."
(3.) ON the margin of this report the Collector| Deputy Director of Con solidation made the following endorsement: "Take explanation of the Consolidator and A.C.O. both and submit for suitable action. They deserve punishment for this." Sd. D.P. Arya, Collector|D.D.C. 13-3-68.";