JUDGMENT

Delay condoned, leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, is from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench in W.P. No. 7524/88,dated November 27,1992. The respondent was temporarily appointed as Assistant Project Officer by the proceedings dated May 20, 1980. The order of appointment recites that she was appointed to an ex-cadre temporary post of Asstt. Project Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1950 by direct recruitment through Departmental Selection Committee under National Adult Education Scheme, The appointment order also shows that her appointment is a temporary one from the date of the joining the duty and it would be terminated "at any time by giving one months notice or one months pay". The superior officers have reported on two occasions, first on April 21, 1982 and secondly on May 18, 1982 informing the competent authority of the unsatisfactory work of the respondent. In consequence, by order dated June 8, 1982, exercising the power under * Termination of Services U.P. Govt. Temporary Govt. Services Rules, the service of the respondent was terminated giving one month pay and allowances in lieu of one months notice. Challenging the order, the respondent filed a representation before the Service Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court. The Division Bench by the impugned order, allowed the writ petition and directed reinstatement of respondent with all consequential benefits with liberty to the appellant to conduct an inquiry, if they so desire, in accordance with rules.

* U.P. Temporary Govt. Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975

3. It is contended for the Government that two modes of exercise of power are available to the Govt., namely, that if the Govt. are of the view that the acts complained of are misconduct, it would be open to the Govt. to conduct an inquiry, after giving reasonable opportunity to the delinquent and then to take action according to law; alternatively, if the competent authority, in terms of the order of appointment or as per rules takes an action, it would be in accordance with the terms of appointment or the rules and in that event, the need to conduct an inquiry does not arise. In support thereof, Sri Sehgal, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of U.P. V. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691 in which self-same rules were interpreted.

4. It is contended for the respondent by her learned counsel that the termination is by way of a punishment visiting with civil consequences and as a result the only course open to the appellants was to conduct an enquiry, after giving an opportunity to the respondent, to vindicate her innocence and then to take appropriate action according to law. The High Court has considered all the facts and circumstances of this case and found that action taken was punitive and that an inquiry is needed and that, therefore, it is not a case warranting interference by this Court.

5. Giving anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we are of the considered view that the High Court had not considered the matter in its proper perspectives. This Court, interpreted the self-same rules and held in K. K. Shuklas case (1991 AIR SCW 793) (supra) in paragraph 6 that:

"A temporary Government servant has no right to hold the post, his services are liable to be terminated by giving him one months notice without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary government servants. A temporary government Servant Can, however, be dismissed from service by way of punishment. Whenever, the competent authority is satisfied that the work and conduct of a temporary servant is not satisfactory or that his continuance in service is not in public interest on account of his