JUDGMENT

K.N. SINGH, J.— Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Luc know Bench) setting aside the order dated September 23,1980 terminating the respondents services.

3. The sole question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the order dated September 23, 1980 terminating the respondents services, who was admittedly an ad-hoc and temporary employee is vitiated in law. The High Court has held that since juniors to the respondent were retained in service while the respondents services were terminated, the order of termination was discriminatory in nature. It further held that since the order of termination was founded on an adverse entry awarded to the respondent in his character roll without giving him any opportunity on the ground that he was not suitable, the order "cannot be said to be a decision given in good faith". The High Court further observed: "Even if any punishment was to be awarded, it should have been proportionate to the alleged offence, if any." On these findings the High Court held that the order of termination suffered from apparent error of law; it accordingly allowed the respondents writ petition and quashed the order of termination.

4. The factual matrix of the case is in a short compass. The respondent, was appointed on ad-hoc basis on February 18,1977 as an Assistant Auditor under the Local Funds Audit Examinater of the State of Uttar Pradesh, for a fixed period ending on August 31, 1977. In December 1977 the respondent was again appointed on ad-hoc basis for a period ending on February 28,1978. Since the regular appointment could not be made in time, the respondents services were extended from time to time. The last extension was granted on January 21, 1980 and the extended period of service was to expire on February 28, 1981. The terms and conditions of respondents service as contained in the order of appointment stated that the appointment was ad-hoc, purely temporary for the term fixed in the order and his services were liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. He was awarded an adverse entry in his character roll for the year 1977-78. The entry stated that the respondents work was poor and he should work hard and take interest in the work. The respondent made representation against the entry but the same was rejected. The respondent and Rajendra Prasad Pandey another Sub-Auditor both were deputed to audit the accounts of Raja Raghubar Dayal Inter College, Sitapur for the year 1979-80. While carrying on the audit the respondent and Rajendra Prasad Pandey both are alleged to have acted in excess of their authority in auditing the "Boys Fund Accounts" of that college for the year 1978-79 on their own accord without any authority for the same. They issued audit note under their own signatures and also irregularly demanded a high amount of Rs 13,250.70 as audit fee and collected an amount of Rs 2000 as audit fee for which they issued receipts under their own signatures. On receipt of complaint a preliminary inquiry was held and it was found that the allegations against the respondent and Rajendra Prasad Pandey were correctand both of them had acted beyond their authority and collected a sum of Rs 2000 as audit fee for the audit of the Boys Fund Accounts, although the Boys Fund of the institution did not fall within the purview of audit of the Local Funds Audit and no fee was chargeable for the audit of such Fund. After the preliminary inquiry report, the respondent was relieved from his duties from Sitapur and directed to join his duties at Allahabad, but the respondent proceeded on leave and did not join his duties at Allahabad. Ultimately, the respondents services were terminated by the order dated September 23, 1980 and on the same day by another order, services of Rajendra Prasad Pandey were also terminated. Both the aggrieved persons filed writ petitions in the High Court at Luck now Bench under Article 226 of