A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order dated August 21, 1982 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal No. V, Lucknow, rejecting the claim petition filed by the petitioner under the U.P. Public Services Tribunals Act. The claim petition was directed against an order dated August 27,1975 terminating the services of the petitioner as a Lower Division Clerk.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis a Lower Division Clerk on July 27, 1964 in the Labour Department by the Employment Officer. The petitioner continued in uninterrupted service until August 27, 1975 when his services were terminated. It is asserted that the petitioner's name was included in the list of Lower Division Clerks who were approved for confirmation on the post as per the Government Order No. BES/0903/86/3242, dated April, 26, 1975. However, by an order dated August 23; 1975 the petitioner's services were terminated on the ground that his services were no longer needed and that on the expiry of one month from the date of notice or on payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof his services will be deemed to be terminated. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a claim petition under Section 4 of U.P. Public Services Tribunals Act. The order of termination was assailed on several grounds. It was alleged that the order of termination was actuated by malice and ill will and though the order appeared to be innocuous on its face it was really passed by way of punishment. No opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner to show cause against the allegations on the basis of which his services were terminated. It was also asserted that the adverse entries and material which formed the basis of the order were not communicated to him.
(3.) The claim was contested by the respondents who asserted that the petitioner was a purely temporary hand and his services were liable to be terminated by a month's notice. The petitioner had been awarded adverse entries for the years 1967-68 to 1972-73. The petitioner's name was not approved for confirmation and he was not confirmed because of bad entries awarded to him from time to time. No stigma was implied in the impugned order of termination. Allegations of mala fide were also emphatically denied. The plea that the principle of 'last come first go' was not attracted to the case inasmuch as the petitioner's services were being terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work and performance.;