ORDER

1. The respondent, Krishna Kumar Sharma, was recruited as a Temporary Fireman Constable in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, in Police Fire Brigade with effect from 23-11-1971. By order dated 20-1-1980, his services were terminated by paying him one months pay in lieu of notice under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The respondent filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") but the same was dismissed by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 21-11-1985. Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ petition (CWP No. 3909 of 1986) in the Allahabad High Court which has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 10-12-1991. The High Court has held that the termination of the services of the respondent was by way of punishment and since he was not afforded reasonable opportunity against the said action the said order was passed in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The High Court has placed reliance on the averments contained in paragraph 19 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants wherein it has been stated that the work of the respondent was not satisfactory and he was a habitual absentee without leave and, therefore, his services have been terminated. According to the High Court the said averments in the counter-affidavit indicate that the termination of services was by way of punishment.

2. In the context of the provisions contained in the Rules this Court in State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukia1 has laid down : (SCC pp. 697-98, paras 6 and 7)

"Under the service jurisprudence a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated in accordance with the relevant service rules and the terms of contract of service. If on the perusal of the character roll entries or on the basis of preliminary inquiry on the allegations made against an employee, the competent authority is satisfied that the employee is not suitable for the service whereupon the services of the temporary employee are terminated, no exception can be taken to such an order of termination. 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 unsuitability, misconduct or inefficiency, it may either terminate his services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the service or the relevant rules or it may decide to take punitive action against the temporary government servant."

In that case an adverse entry had been awarded in the year 1977-78 that the a work of the employee was poor and he should work hard and take interest in the work and there was report of a preliminary inquiry on a complaint with regard to unauthorised audit by the employee. This Court held that the termination of the services of the employee in those circumstances could not be held to be by way of punishment so as to attract Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

3. In the present case, we find that in the character roll of the respondent for the years 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1979 there were the following remarks :

"1974 One lapse overstaying from leave; work and conduct just satisfactory; integrity certified. 1975 In habit of overstay mg from leave. Two lapses - work and conduct, other miscellaneous just satisfactory. Integrity certified. 1976 Work satisfactory. Conduct remains just a