A temporary employee can be dismissed from service by way of punishment or his services can be terminated in accordance with the terms of the contract of service or the relevant rules. If the termination is by way of punishment, the employee is entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. However, if the termination is in accordance with the terms of the contract of service or the relevant rules, the employee is not entitled to the protection of Article 311(2).

S.C. Verma, Dev Kant Trivedi, JJ.

The Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal, by order dated 31.12.1980 has set aside the termination order terminating the services of Radhey Shyam Gupta by order dated 23.1.1976 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd., Lucknow.

2. The Petitioner, U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. have challenged the impugned order of U.P. Public Services Tribunal, mainly on the ground that the Tribunal committed manifest error of law in holding that the action of termination was by way of punishment founded on misconduct and no opportunity was afforded to the delinquent.

3. The opposite party No. 1 was appointed by order dated 27.7.1973 on the post of Branch Manager in the pay scale of Rs. 300-900 on temporary basis. The temporary services of Sri Radhey Shyam Gupta were liable to be terminated on one month's notice and he was liable to be transferred to any District. The opposite party No. 1 was initially posted at Meerut.

4. It was alleged by the opposite party No. 1 before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal that the order of termination has been passed due to malice and bias of one Sri Ram Pal Singh, General Manager of the Corporation, who was interested in one Sri Balbir Singh Chauhan, an Assistant Sales Officer against whom the opposite party No. 1 had lodged complaints. The opposite party No. 1 has also alleged that the Secretary of the Corporation required him to prepare charge-sheet against Sri Balbir Singh Chauhan for the irregularities committed by him. The opposite party No. 1 was transferred to Varanasi by order dated 9.5.1974 but the General Manager (Fertilizer) Sri Rampal Singh insisted to prepare the charge-sheet and thereafter to proceed to Varanasi. The opposite party No. 1 was required to join at Lucknow on 27.6.1974. In December, 1974 he was transferred again to Agra where he joined in January, 1975. The opposite party No. 1 also reported against some employees at Agra who had committed serious irregularities. Sri Bhisham Pal Singh, against whom, the opposite party No. 1 has lodged reports, was close relation of Sri Ram Pal Singh.

5. The opposite party No. 1 was posted to Lucknow and he was required to improve his working by the General Manager (Fertilizer) by order dated 24.9.1975. It has been alleged that due to bias and mala fides, Sri Ram Pal Singh was instrumental in getting the services of opposite party No. 1 terminated by the Managing Director, Sri Iftikhar Husain by order dated 23.1.1976.

6. The Petitioners contested the case before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal and they alleged that the work and conduct of the opposite party No. 1 was not satisfactory and he was served with warnings to improve the work. The Petitioners denied that the action was founded on the report sent by Sri Ram Pal Singh, in which it was reported that the opposite party No. 1 had fraudulently taken Rs. 2,000 from Sri Jai Chand Lal.

7. The U.P. Public Services Tribunal, on the above material on record held that the allegations of bias and mala fides alleged by the opposite party No. 1 have not been specifically denied but that would not be sufficient to dispose of the claim petition only on the ground that Sri Ram Pal Singh was biased or prejudiced. The Tribunal held that there was no material on record on the basis of which a conclusion could be drawn that the work of the opposite party No. 1 was unsatisfactory. The Tribunal has also held that there is ex-parte preliminary enquiry report submitted by Sri Ram Pal Singh against the Respondent No. 1 with regard to the charge of having fraudulently taken Rs. 2,000 from Sri Jai Chand Lal, was the basis of the impugned action of termination. The opposite parly No. 1 was not afforded any opportunity to contest the report nor during the preliminary enquiry, the opposite party No. 1 was asked to show cause or submit his defence. The enquiry report on the basis of which the action has been taken is not correct and as s