M. Katju, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed by order dated 17-11-84 in service of the respondent No. 1 on adhoc basis vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition and his service was terminated by order dated 14-9-88 Annexure 2 to the writ petition. After the termination of his service he filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, which was reflected by the impugned order dated 5-5-92. Aggrieved, he has filed this writ petition.
(2.) A perusal of Annexure-1 of the writ partition shows that the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis and it was mentioned in that order that he will have to appear before a selection committee and then it will be decided whether to continue him in service. His service was temporary and liable to be terminated at any time. In the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 a flood relief scheme was carried out and on verification it was found that there was a shortage of rice and pulse in the ration stock. He was asked to explain the shortage and he submitted his explanation, and thereafter a sum of Rs. 11,192.27 was ordered to be recovered from his salary. He submitted a representation against that order but thereafter his service was terminated and the claim petition was rejected by the Tribunal.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the service was terminated as a measure of punishment and hence the order was illegal. I am not in agreement with this submission. As held by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore, AIR 1991 (1) SC 691, the mere fact that prior to issue of a termination order an enquiry was held does not necessarily mean that the termination order becomes punitive in nature. The same is the view taken by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. A.K. Masta, 1995 LIC, 1401. Although this was a case of an order of compulsory retirement being passed during pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the Supreme Court held that the same principle will apply to cases of termination of temporary employees (vide Para 10 of the judgment). It is settled law that a temporary or adhoc employee has no right to the post. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Satya Narain v. High Court, AIR 1996 (1) SC 560, that the service of a probationer can be terminated for unsatisfactory performance. In State of U P. v. Kamla Devi, JT 1996 (5) SC 595, it was held by the Supreme Court that the Government can terminate the service of a temporary employee without any notice. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, JT 1994 SC 281, vide Paragraph 15.;