Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. In this writ petition the order dated 8-1-1982 as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition passed by the respondent No. 2 is in question. 2. By the reason of the said order the respondent No. 2 terminated the petitioners services on the ground that his services are not required. By the said order the petitioner, however, was offered one months salary. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that prior to passing of the said order a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner wanted to inspect the records and further prayed for sometime which was not acceded to. However, it is admitted that the aformentioned disciplinary proceeding was not continued and the petitioners services were terminated by virtue of the aforementioned letter as contained in Annexure-8. 3. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to the statement made in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the writ petition. In the aforementioned paragraphs it has specifically been mentioned that other persons who were junior to the petitioner have been retained. The petitioner has further stated that he was the senior-most Account Officer under the respondent No. 1. These allegations made in the writ petition are not denied in the counter affidavit. 4. In the Manager, Government Branch Press and Anr. V/s. B. D. Belliappa, 1979 38 FLR 337, the Supreme Court has clearly held that even in the case where services of the temporary servant is dispensed with, it is obligatory on the part of the management to assign some reasons particularly when the juniors are retained in service. 5. Further the very fact that the petitioners services were terminated after dropping the proceeding against him, it can be presumed that the petitioners services were terminated by way of punishment. The said order as contained in Annexure-8 cannot be said to be an order of discharge simpliciter. That aspect of the matter was considered by the Supreme Court in various decisions. Reference in this connection may be made to K. C. Joshi V/s. Union of India and Ors. -- in Jarnail Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Punjab and Ors., 1986 53 FLR 265 and Jagdish Prasad V/s. Sachiv Zila, Ganna Committee Muzaffarpur and Ors., 1986 52 FLR 518. 6. Reference in this connection may be made to K. C. Joshi V/s. Union of India and Ors. -- in Jarnail Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Punjab and Ors., 1986 53 FLR 265 and Jagdish Prasad V/s. Sachiv Zila, Ganna Committee Muzaffarpur and Ors., 1986 52 FLR 518. 6. Further the petitioner has alleged mala fide as against the respondent No. 3 in para 20 of the writ petition. Although the respondent No. 3 himself has sworn affidavit in support of the counter affidavit but he has not controverted the allegations of mala fide as categorically stated by the petitioner in the aforementioned paragraph. 7. From the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-8 is vitiated in law as the same must be held to be mala fide both on facts as well as in law. 8. In this situation I have no option left but to quash Annexure-8 to the writ petition. However, there will be no order as to costs.