JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - The petitioner who was appointed as Collection Amin on 12-1-1961, aggrieved against the order of his termination, had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. On 28-6-77, the appeal was dismissed although in the order dated 28-6-77 the Commissioner remarked that Tahsildar, Sub Divisional Officer as well as the District Magistrate had reported that the services of the petitioner were satisfactory but as the entries for previous years proved that the work of the petitioner was below average, meaning thereby that he ceased to be useful to be retained, the services of the petitioner were rightly terminated. The petitioner preferred a representation before the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lko. which was also dismissed on merit on 29-2-80. The order indicates that the Government dismissed the representation after due consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a claim petition on 16-10-80 before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the petitioner mainly on the two grounds ; firstly, that the claim petition was barred by time ; and secondly, that the petitioner was a temporary employee and according to the terms of his services and the rules governing the services of the petitioner, his services could not be terminated by giving him one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. 2. As far as the first ground, which, has been taken by the Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition, is concerned, is misconceived for the reason of the fact that under para 13 of the second notification No. 2928/XI/264 dated 3-8-32 as amended from time to time, it is provided that the State Govt, may of its own motion or otherwise call for the record of any case decided by the authority subordinate to it in the exercise of any power conferred on such authority by these rules, and (a) confirm, modify or reverse the order passed by such authority ; or (b) direct that a further inquiry be held in the case, or (c) reduce or enhance the penalty imposed by the order ; or (d) make such other order in the case as it may deem fit : Provided where it is proposed to enhance the penalty imposed by any such order, the Government servant concerned shall be given an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed enhancement. 3. 3. The aforesaid Government order was issued in pursuance of the Pule 54 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules made by the Secretary of State in Council under Section 96B(2) of the Government of India Act. Hence, the finding of the Public Services Tribunal that the claim petition filed by the petitioner was barred as he did not file claim petition within three years from the date of dismissal of the appeal is untenable. The petitioner had a remedy to file a representation before the State Government. In the instant case the representation was entertained and after the consideration the same was dismissed. The petitioner admittedly filed claim petition within three years from the date of dismissal of representation, hence it cannot be said that the same was time barred. 4. As far as the second ground is concerned a perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner itself indicates that the Tahsildar, Sub Divisional Officer and the District Magistrate considered the work of the petitioner and found that his work was satisfactory but the Commissioner found that the work of the petitioner was below standard and his utility in service ceased to exist and he was rightly terminated from service. Thus it is evident that the foundation of order of termination was his work which was considered to be below average and he ceased to be useful. Thus a stigma is apparent from the order itself. There is no doubt that the services of a public servant can be terminated in accordance with the rules governing conditions of service but if the appointing authority intended to terminate the services of an employee on the basis of certain acts and omissions or charge of misconduct etc. it could not be terminated by an order simplicter but the same could be terminated by an order passed alter giving reasonable opportunity to the public servant. In the present case, admittedly, no opportunity was given and the services of the petitioner were terminated. 5. In view of what has been indicated herein above the writ petition succeeds and a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 30-12-75, 9-12-77, 29-2-80 and 20-1 1-87 contained in annexures-6, 8, 10 and 16 to the writ petition respectively are quashed. 5. In view of what has been indicated herein above the writ petition succeeds and a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 30-12-75, 9-12-77, 29-2-80 and 20-1 1-87 contained in annexures-6, 8, 10 and 16 to the writ petition respectively are quashed. However in the circumstances of the case the petitioner would be entitled for three years salary only, but he would be treated on continuous service.