(1.) This is a second appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent in the case is one Om Pra-kash Garg. The respondent was employed as a lower Division Assistant in the U. P. Civil Secretariat in March 1942 as a temporary hand. Thereafter he was employed in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies in the capacity of a Reference Clerk. On the 30th of January, 1953, Temporary Servants Rules came into force. Under these rules the services of the respondent could be terminated by one month's notice on the part of the Government. The respondent is alleged to have been suspected of having committed the offence of bribery. In that connection the C. I. D. made investigation into the case. They put him up for identification. He could not be identified. The C. I. D., therefore, did not prosecute the respondent. They made a report to the Department. On the 14th of July, 1955, as a result of this report an entry was made in the character roll of the respondent. This entry is to the following effect :
(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties 1 am of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied on a case of the Supreme Court report in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36. In paragraph 28 of the judgment of that case it is observed that where misconduct of the employee is a mere motive for termination of his services the order would be innocuous. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on the tame case. He has invited my attention to a subsequent portion of the same paragraph which contains the following observations :
(3.) Applying these principles and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower Court gave a clear finding of fact to the effect that in the present case the foundation of action by the Government had a tinge of penal action.