( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Lascar (Temporary), a Class IV employee, by an order dated 31st March 1963 by the 1st respondent. His services were terminated by an order issued by the 1st respondent on 4th april 1966. The order of termination is in the following terms:"under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) rules, 1949, the service of Sri Venkatesha, Lascar (Ty.), Pass No. B/64 is hereby terminated with immediate effect. He will be paid a sum equivalent, to the amount of his pay plus allowances for one month, which is the period of notice due to him. The payment of allowances will, however, be subject to the conditions under which such allowances are otherwise admissible. " ( 2 ) IT is undisputed that the nomenclature of the Rules stated in this order is not correct. The correct provision is Rule 5 of the Civilians in defence Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1949. ( 3 ) THE petitioner submitted a representation to the Deputy Director of Personnel (Civilian), Air Headquarters, New Delhi, against the' termination order. He received a communication stating that his appeal petition is rejected. The petitioner being aggrieved by the termination of his services has filed this petition praying that the order terminating his services in Annexures 1 and 2 dated 4th April 1966 and 25th June 1966 be quashed and that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to re-instate him in service with all benefits. ( 4 ) IT is not contended before us that the petitioner is entitled to the protection provided under Art. 311 of the Constitution as he is in defence service. ( 5 ) SHRI Shyamasunder, the learned Counsel for the petitioner complains that the order of termination is opposed to the provisions of the civilians in Defence Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1952. He submits that before the petitioner's services are terminated, he should be appraised of the ground on which the action to terminate his services is proposed to be taken and he should be given an opportunity to show cause why such action should not be taken. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the provisions of Rule 17 of the Civilians in Defence Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1952. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the provisions of Rule 17 of the Civilians in Defence Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1952. The petitioner's Counsel further relied on Clause (6) of the office instructions issued by the Headquarters Training command, IAF. , New Delhi pertaining to delegation of powers under rules 10 and 13 of the Civilians in Defence Services, (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules, 1952. It appears to us that these provisions do not help the petitioner. Adverting to the provisions of Rule 17 of the said rules, it must be mentioned that it applies only to a probationer and therefore inapplicable to the petitioner. Further this Rule and Clause (6) of the directions issued by the Headquarters Training Command, IAF. , New delhi, pertain to the disciplinary action proposed to be taken against either a probationer or a temporary employee for any specific fault or on account of his unsuitability for service. We are unable to accept the submission that these provisions apply to any action of termination of services of temporary employee, simpliciter. These provisions apply only if the action is taken against the temporary employee to terminate his services as a measure of punishment for any fault or on account of his unsuitability for service. Therefore, it appears to us that the petitioner cannot have any grievance against exercise of the powers under Rule 5 of the civilians in Defence Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1949. Rule 5 of the said Rules, reads as follows:"5 (a) The service of a temporary Government servant who is not in quasi-permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority, or by the appointing authority to the Government servant. (b) The period of such notice shall be one month unless otherwise agreed to by the Government and by the Government servant. "it cannot be disputed that the order of termination of the petitioner's services is in accordance with these Rules. It is contended that the order made by the Senior Personnel Staff Officer, on the representation made by the petitioner against the order of termination is mechanical and does not set out the reasons for the rejection of the petitioner's appeal. No,. It is contended that the order made by the Senior Personnel Staff Officer, on the representation made by the petitioner against the order of termination is mechanical and does not set out the reasons for the rejection of the petitioner's appeal. No,. provision under which an appeal can be preferred against the order of termination of the type of Annexure 1 has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, the termination is simpliciter and not. for any dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the higher authority would give any detailed reasons for the termination of the petitioner's services. It is however submitted by Shri Shyamsunder, that the appeal petition must be taken to have been filed under the provisions of Rule 19 of the CCA, Rules. In view of the fact that the termination of the petitioner's service was not under these Rules, we cannot appreciate the above submission that the appeal must be taken to have been filed under the provisions of Rule 19 of the CCA, Rules. ( 6 ) IT was submitted by Shri Shyamsunder that In this case, in view of the averments made by the 1st respondent in his counter-affidavit, it must be taken that the termination order is based on the ground that the petitioner's services were unsatisfactory, Shri B. S. Keshava Iyengar, the learned Central Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, pointed out that the averments with regard to the service record of the petitioner became necessary on account of the petitioner's allegation in his affidavit that he had an unblemished record of satisfactory service and that his services are abruptly terminated by the order dated 4-4-1966. As mentioned already, the order of termination does not say that it is for any particular reason that the services of the petitioner are terminated. The order of termination does not cast any aspersion on the petitioner. It does not state that on account of any blemish in service, his services are terminated. As observed in Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of M. P. , AIR. 1970 SC. 158. "the services of a temporary Government servant may be terminated on one month's notice whenever the Government thinks it necessary or expedient to do so for administrative reasons. It is impossible to define before-hand all the circumstances in which the discretion can be exercised. As observed in Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of M. P. , AIR. 1970 SC. 158. "the services of a temporary Government servant may be terminated on one month's notice whenever the Government thinks it necessary or expedient to do so for administrative reasons. It is impossible to define before-hand all the circumstances in which the discretion can be exercised. The discretion was necessarily left to the Government". As long as the order of termination does not cast any aspersion on the temporary servant and is not actuated by ulterior motives, the order cannot be disturbed. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, we see no substance in this writ petition-and the same is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we direct each party to bear his own costs. --- *** --- .