STATE OF U R Vs. SRI OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India the petitioners pray for is suance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 29-4-1992, passed by the U. P Publicservicestribunal No. II, Lucknow.

(2.) THE facts are that Respondent No. 1 was appointed in temporary capacity as Class IV employee, i e. 'mali' by the Respon dent No. 3, Commissioner, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur, in a clear vacancy on permanent post which fell vacant due to retirement of one Bindeshwari vide order dated 2-7-1984. He belongs to Scheduled Castes Community. THE services of the Respondent No. 1 were terminated vide order dated 2-4-1985. Challenging the validity of the said order, the Respondent No. 1 filed the claim petition before the Respondent No. 3 pleading that one Janar-dan Singh who was Head Assistant in the Office of the Commissioner of the Division had become displeased with the Respon dent No. 1 and his father, as they had not worked at his residence. Janardan Singh had ultimately got his services terminated by means of the impugned order dated 2-4-1985 by the Commissioner of the Division, Sri S. K. Biswas. It was mentioned in the order in which it was mentioned that he shall got one month's pay in lieu of notice. He was falsely accused by Janardan Singh that he used to attend office after taking alcohal and inspite of warnings had not given up the habit. It was wrongly alleged that his work and conduct had been un satisfactory, actually order of termination was passed byway of punishment and same was stigmatory, therefore, the termination order was liable to be quashed.

(3.) LEARNED standing Counsel vehe mently urged that the Respondent No. 1 was holding the post of Mali in temporary capacity and his services were liable to be terminated in accordance with U. P. Tem porary Government Servants (Termina tion of Service) Rules, 1975, therefore, it was urged that the order of Tribunal should be set aside. 3. The Tribunal after hearing the Counsel for the parties and perusal of the record held that :- 4. "the opposite parties themselves, in their counter-affidavit / wijitten statement have pleaded that the petitioner used to perform his duties after consuming alcohol regarding which a First Information Report had been lodged by the department with the police and also that he used to cause hinderance in the normal working of the assistants in the office, lie, thus had been thrown out of employment due to his above mentioned misconduct but no opportunity was given to him to show cause against the proposed action and to defend himself as required by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. " 7. The aforesaid finding was recorded on the basis of the material on record. We do not find any infirmity and illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. It is well settled that even a temporary Government servant is entitled to protection under Ar ticle 311, if his services are to be terminated on the ground of some misconduct. In the instant case the procedure prescribed for taking disciplinary action was not followed. Although on the face of it the termination order was innocuous, but in fact same was stigmatic and punitive. 8. The writ petition has got no sub stance and same fails and is dismissed. The interim order, if any is discharged. Petition dismissed. .