D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner's services was terminated by an order dated 6.12.1993, Annexure 2 to the writ petition, on the ground that his services were no longer required under the provisions of U. P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that the said order has been issued by way of camouflage with ulterior design. After the respondents had failed to get the petitioner's removed, pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding in which he was found not guilty and was exonerated without any adverse effect. The said order was passed on 24.10.1993, Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It appears that there is 42 days gap between the order by which the petitioner was exonerated in a disciplinary proceeding and the order of termination and it pre-supposes the nexus with the order by which the petitioner was exonerated. Learned counsel for the petitioner also alleges that the petitioner was not a temporary Government servant within the meaning of the definition 'temporary service' as contained in Rule 2 of the said Rules. Inasmuch as according to him the petitioner was neither on officiating basis nor rendering substantive service on a temporary post. On the contrary he was serving on temporary basis against a substantive post. According to him, he was not officiating on a permanent post. On the other hand, he was appointed temporarily on substantive basis. Therefore, according to him, he does not come within the purview of the said Rule.
(2.) Sri Sabhajit Yadav, learned standing counsel, on the other hand. contends that there is no distinction between temporary service or 'officiating service' on permanent basis. It is two different coinage with the same nomenclature. According to him, the petitioner was in temporary service, therefore, his services were rightly terminated under the said Rules.
(3.) In the counter-affidavit, a case has been made out that the petitioner had suffered petty punishment and there were two adverse entries and, therefore, he was unfit for being retained in service. Admittedly, the petitioner was recruited in 1988 and that his services were terminated in 1993, namely, after five years. The petitioner services could be terminated immediately after the petty offence or the two adverse entries. Instead he was allowed to continue for long five years. The respondents considered the situation and decided not to retain him in service on account of his unsuitability. But the order of termination does not put any stigma on the petitioner. The said Rules postulates termination of temporary service without any reason. The only embargo imposed is that of giving one month's notice or notice pay in lieu thereof. In the present case since notice has been given, the distinction sought to be made by the learned counsel does not appear to be of any substance.;