BHARAT LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Consti tution of, India the petitioner challenges an order dated 22nd April, 1982 by which his service as a temporary peon in the Sales Tax Office at Varanasi were terminated and the order dated 9th November, 1985 passed by the U. P. Services Tribunal whereby it dismissed the petitioner's claim petition challenging the said termination.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

(3.) IN Ravindra Kumar v. U. P. State Handloom Corporation AIR 1987 SC 2408, it was explained that if the delinquency of the officer in temporary service is taken as an operative method in terminating the service, the order is not considered as punitive while if the order of termination is founded on it the termination is considered to be a punitive action. This is so on account of the fact that it is necessary for every employer to assess the service of the temporary incumbent in order to find out as to whether he should be confirmed in his appointment or his services should be terminated. It may also be necessary to find out whether the officer should be tried for some more time on temporary basis. It was further observed that since both in regard to a temporary employee or an officiating employee in a higher post such an assessment would be necessary and merely because the appropriate authority proceeded to make assessment and leave record of its view, the same would not be available to be utilised to make an order of termination following such assessment punitive in character. There is no justification in the contention of the petitioner that once such an assesment is recorded the order of termination made soon thereafter must take punitive character. IN Commdandore Commanding v. V. N. Raj an, AIR 1981 SC 965 it was held that where the decision to terminate the services of the servant had been taken on the highest level on the ground of unsuitability of the servant in relation to the post held by him and it was not by way of punishment no stigma was attached to him by reason of the termination of a servant, the termination cannot be said to be violative for non-observance of Article 311 (2 ). IN Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State of U. P. , AIR 1992 SC 496 a temporary employee was allowed to work for 18 years despite adverse entries, yet the termination of his service was upheld.