G.C.Mathur, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the State Government against the judgment of a learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent and queshing an order discharging the petitioner from service.
(2.) THE respondent was a temporary Government servant and was employed on the post of Health Assistant (Family Planning Depart ment) at Varanasi in 1968. A circular letter dated March 23, 1971 was issued by the Joint Director of Medical Health Service (F.P.O.), U.P. Lucknow to all District Medical Officers of Health in U.P., the relevant portion of which reads thus: - "Now that the year 1970-71 is at the end, I hope you will re view the progress of the total achievement of your district as well as the work-wise achievement. I reiterate to say that no leniency should be shown to a delinquent worker and names of those who have failed to achieve at least 25% of the target should be reported to the District Magistrate for immediate termina tion." A memorandum dated May 12, 1971 was received by the respondent from the Chikitsa Adhikari, Provincial Health Centre, Varanasi, in forming him that the employees who failed to achieve 25% of the target fixed during the year 1970-71 would be discharged from ser vice. He was warned that during this year the petitioner was re quired to procure 15 persons for vasectomy and tubectomy but that he had secured only two persons for vesectomy and none for tubec tomy. He was further warned that he must secure 13 more cases in order to make good the the deficiency in his output. Another memo dated May 24, 1971 was received by the respondent informing him that his achievement in procuring persons for vasectomy and tubectomy was nil in the current year and that in the preceding year he had procured only two persons. He was warned that if he failed to achieve the target fixed, severe action will be taken against him. By order dated July 19, 1971 passed by the District Magistrate, the peti tioner's service were terminated. He challenged his termination or der on the ground that it was passed by way of punishment and, there fore, amounted to dismissal or removal from service and that the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India were at tracted which were not complied with. This contention found fav our with the learned Single Judge with the result that he allowed the writ petition and quashed the termination order.
(3.) IT is not disputed that the respondent was a temporary Govern ment servant. It is also not disputed that under the rules, the ser vices of a temporary Government servant can be terminated by giv ing one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice. The impugned order is an order of termination simplicitor and casts no stigma on the respondent. It merely informed him that his services were no longer required and were terminated from the date of re ceipt of the order on payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice. The learned Single Judge was of opinion that the termination was for a specific fault, that is to say, for failure to achieve the target prescribed and, therefore, amounted to punishment. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is challenged in this appeal.;