JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat 1. The petitioner's services have been terminated on 17-6-1978. He seems to have filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal which came to be dismissed on 31-1-1982. The petitioner challenges the said order of the Tribunal as also the termination order of his service in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner's case before: the Tribunal as also in this Court is that he was appointed in the department of Health as Medical Officer in 1974 on the pay scale of Rs. 550-!2((0 by the respondent No. 1. He was posted at Chamoli, from where he was transferred to Jhansi district in January, 1977. On 17-6 1978 he is said to have received a letter, which is purported to have been issued under notification dated 11-6 1975 saying that the petitioner's services were no longer required. The petitioner was employed on temporary basis and, therefore, was governed by the rules, governing the temporary services, of 1973 as also the termination of Service Rules framed with regard to temporary employees of 1975. The petitioner has further stated that he found certain disrepancies in the records of the hospital as his predecessor in office had not deposited the patients' registration fees during the period from July, 1976 to October, 1977. Some other articles were also found short by him in the hospital. He is said to have made complaint to the respondents No. 3 and 4 in this regard. On the complaint of the petitioner the respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner to remain present in the hospital as he would make an enquiry in the complaint. The petitioner's predecessor-in-office was also required to be present in the office. The respondent No. 4 was trying to save the person against whom the petitioner has made the complaint. Thereafter the petitioner is said to have received information on 30-1-1978 about the illness of his son at Gwalior. However, he did not leave the station on 30-1-1978 and 31-1-1978. On 31-1-1978 the petitioner is said to have informed the respondent No. 4 that he was proceeding on casual leave for two days to see his son. He was not informed about his transfer before his departure for Gwalior. The petitioner is said to have extended his leave upto 9-2-1978 to be able to look after his ailing son at Gwalior. He is said to have returned on 10-2-1978. He was not informed about his transfer before his departure for Gwalior. The petitioner is said to have extended his leave upto 9-2-1978 to be able to look after his ailing son at Gwalior. He is said to have returned on 10-2-1978. By a letter dated 2-2-1978, which is said to have been served on the petitioner on 10-2-1978 through another doctor of the Health Centre, the petitioner was informed that his casual application was rejected as he was under orders of transfer vide order dated 2-1-1978 passed by the respondent No. 3. It was falsely reported to the authorities that the petitioner was absenting from duty from 1-2-1978. The petitioner alleges that his transfer order from the Health Centre, Bangra, Jhansi to Allahabad was prepared in the office of the respondent No. 3 on 27-1-1978 and was served on the petitioner vide registered letter of 25-2-1978. Prior to this date the petitioner had no knowledge about his transfer though he was available and discharging his duties except for a brief period from 1-2-1973 to 9-2-1978. The petitioner on receipt of the transfer order is said to have handed oyer the charge on 3. The petitioner is said to have approached the respondent No. 4 by a letter of 10-2-1978 to resolve the dispute regarding the shortage of money and other articles noticed by him after he had taken charge from his predecessor in office He could not be relieved unless enquiry in the matter was conducted. On 17-2-1978 the respondent No. 4 is said to have visited the Health Centre, Bangra and taken some case, certain registers and keys of the stores of the hospital He refused to issue any receipt in lieu of those articles On 18-2-1978 the petitioner is said to have made a representation to the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner also lodged a complaint with the police about the seizure of cash and registers by the respondent No- 4, The respondent No. 4 is said to have called for an explanation from the petitioner as to why he made a false allegation against him. A letter was sent to the petitioner's predecessor in office by the respondent No. 4 to show cause and to hand over the articles back, which were found short. The petitioner is said to have filed reply to this letter on 13-3-1978. A letter was sent to the petitioner's predecessor in office by the respondent No. 4 to show cause and to hand over the articles back, which were found short. The petitioner is said to have filed reply to this letter on 13-3-1978. Thereafter the petitioner is said to have written letters for issuance of 'No dues certificate' to enable him to join at Allahabad. However, he was not issued any such letter nor was he paid salary from 1-1-1978, though he made several requests in this behalf. 4. The petitioner submits that in this background the respondents No. 3 and 4 manipulated the affairs in such manner that they got the petitioner's services terminated on 17-6-1978. This order was served on the petitioner on 17-7-1978 along with the letter of the respondent No. 3. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the respondent No. 1. A copy of the claim petition is annexed to this petition. The said claim petition was dismissed on 13-1-1982 and the petitioner was served with a copy of the order on 9-2-1982. The petitioner's case is that the order terminating the petitioner's services was by way of punishment and the out come of the complaint lodged by the petitioner against his superior authorities The petitioner states that he was compelled by the respondents No. 3 end 4 to state that he was relieved from Primary Health Centre Benga w.e. f. 2-2-1978 while in fact he received the transfer order on 25-2-1978. The respondents No. 3 and 4 are said to have made some adverse entry relating to the year 1974-75 against the petitioner. which was communicated to the petitioner in April, 1978. Even after this the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar. The petitioner was never served with any warning during bis posting either at Chamoli or at Jhansi. False and baseless allegations were fabricated in the records and the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to explain or represent: his case. 5. The petitioner's case it that the order of termination of his service dated 17-6-1978 Impugned in the writ petition was not a simpiciter order of termination of services but has been passed by way of punishment in an arbitrary and malafide manner at the instance of the respondents No. 3 and 4 and on the basis of manipulated records. 5. The petitioner's case it that the order of termination of his service dated 17-6-1978 Impugned in the writ petition was not a simpiciter order of termination of services but has been passed by way of punishment in an arbitrary and malafide manner at the instance of the respondents No. 3 and 4 and on the basis of manipulated records. Those doctors, who were junior to the petitioner, were retained in service and the petitioner's services were terminated, which was against the principles of 'first come last go' last come first go'. The persons, who were junior to the petitioner and who are alleged to have been retained in service are mentioned in para 34 of the writ petition. The order of termination of the petitioner's service is said to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and passed in violation of the service rules. 6. In their counter affidavit the respondents have stated that the petitioner's report about his predecessor in office was not correct. The petitioner was informed about his transfer to Allahabad orally by the respondent No. 4. A letter is also said to have been addressed to the petitioner about his transfer on 2-2-1978. The adverse entry in the petitioner's Character roll was with regard to the period 1974-75, which was duty communicated to him when he was posted at Chamoli. The other adverse entries related to the petitioners misbehaviour with the Health Minister and was made on the basis of the Director's letter dated 19-1-1978. Some amount is said to have been due from the petitioner on account of electricity charges and on account of advance taken by him for family planning work. The finding of the Tribunal is justified. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has generally stated that the record was manipulated by the respondents No. 3 and 4 and on the basis of the manipulated record and order of termination was issued. He has also replied to the assessment, which was made by the respondents No. 3 and 4 in respect of the petitioner during his tenure of service at Bangra, The complaint of the petitioner made against his predecessor-in-offiee if said to have been based on correct facts and to save him the respondeat No. 3 and 4 levelled false allegations against the petitioner. 7. 7. In reply to the petitioner's claim petition before the respondent No. 1 the respondents' case seems to have been that the petitioner had not handed over the charge after he was transferred from Bangra to Allahabad. A huge amount had remained with him,, which he did not account for, The Work of the petitioner was unsatisfactory, therefore, his services were not required. He is said to have remained absent when he was called in the Office for holding the enquiry on his complaint against his predecessor-in- Office. The transfer order, which was sent to him on 27-1-1978 by the Chief Medical Officer was not obeyed by him and he had sought leave for 1-2-1978 and 2-2-1978, which was refused. Inspite of refusal of leave He remained absent from duty from 1-2-1978 to 9-2-1978. The letter is said to have been written to him on 2-2-1978 informing him that be should treat himself to be relieved immediately. The petitioner was not due to get any salary because huge amounts are lying with him from the time he was posted at Chamoli besides other amounts at the time he was posted at Bangra. 8. In their additional pleas before the respondent No. 1 the respondents No 3 and 4 had stated that the petitioner's services could be terminated at any time after giving one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice, as he was appointed temporally in the Directorate of .Medical and Health Services The conduct and! work of the petitioner was found Unsatisfactory; hence his services were terminated on objective assessment of the same on the ground of general unsuitability of terms and conditions or his appointment. These assertions are mentioned in para 12 of the written statement filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4 before the respondent No, 1. The learned counsel for the parties were heated. They submitted the case law also in support of their respective contentions. The material placed on record was also considered carefully. 9. The appointment order of the petitioner dated 30-3-1974 reveals that the petitioner was appointed temporarily as a Medical Officer on certain conditions; The petitioner was to hold his post for one year or till his services were required or till a suitable person was selected by the Public Service Commission, for the post. His services could be terminated by giving one month's notice. His services could be terminated by giving one month's notice. His services were to be governed by temporary service rules. In pursuance of the appointment order he is said to have continued in Service upto 17-6-1978. A copy of the letter said to have been addressed to the petitioner by the respondent No. 4 dated 2-2-1978 reads that the petitioner's casual leave was rejected as he was under transfer from Jhansi to Allahabad vide transfer order dated 2-1-1978. It was stated that the petitioner was absenting from duty with effect from 1-2-1978 before banding over the charge and he was relieved from duty w.e.f. 2-2-1978. 10. Before the Tribunal the petitioner bad relied on some Govt. orders of 1978 which gave him certain rights for consideration against the post. The Tribunal has found that the petitioner's services have been terminated for his work was unsatisfactory and it was a termination simpliciter without attaching any stigma on this petitioner. The petitioner's personal file was also seen by the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 in his order rejecting the petitioner's claim proceeds to state as under i The personal file of the petitioner reveals that he was given a warning and there were two adverse entries in his character roll. One of them related to the year 1974-75 of which a copy has been filed by the petitioner himself as R. 1. It contains the remarks that the petitioner was not cooperative in passing surveillance of the N.M. E.P. and required experience. The character roll containing confidential report relating to petitioner has also been produced before us and it contains another adverse remark for the year 1977-78 stating that the work and conduct of the petitioner was unsatisfactory. He was below average and was very unpopular in the area. The remark further stated that he showed gross negligence of duty in preparing Blood films for Malaria or Pyrexin case and he also showed misconduct towards two A.N.M.S. of P.H.C and his .integrity was also doubtful. The remarks were given by the C.M.O. whose remarks further indicate that the conduct of the petitioner was deplorable. There is an endorsement on the above remarks showing that they were communicated to the petitioner vide confidential letter No. 1629 dated 30-I2-1978. The petitioner was admittedly appointed as temporary Health Medical Officer on 30-3-1974. The remarks were given by the C.M.O. whose remarks further indicate that the conduct of the petitioner was deplorable. There is an endorsement on the above remarks showing that they were communicated to the petitioner vide confidential letter No. 1629 dated 30-I2-1978. The petitioner was admittedly appointed as temporary Health Medical Officer on 30-3-1974. Hence it appears that in view of the above two adverse remarks and the warning given to the petitioner within such a short span of his service, the punishing authority came to the conclusion on the general assessment of his work and conduct that he was unsuitable for the post he was holding and so came to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground of his general unsuitability and not by way of punishment." From the careful analyses of the order dated 13-1-1982 every prudent person would be satisfied that the petitioner's termination of service is by way of punishment. The Tribunal has pointed out that the petitioner's integrity was doubtful and he indulged in misconduct. There were adverse entries against him. His conduct was deplorable, These entries were given on 30-12-1978. The Tribunat has also termed the termination of the petitioner's services as justified on account of adverse remarks earned by him on account of his conduct and lack of integrity and, therefore, it used the expression that the punishing authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not suitable for the: post. The termination simpliciter has a different import but when it is held by the Tribunal itself that the punishing authority had applied his mind and found the petitioner unsuitable on account of various misconducts, adverse entries lack of integrity etc. etc. The termination of service does remain simpliciter. It definitely would require to hear the petitioner before the order of termination was passed. The Tribunal has stated that besides there was an allegation against the petitioner about the negligence of duty and embazzlement etc but it stated that it was by way of answer to the pleas raised by the petitioner and this was not a ground mentioned in the impugned order. 11. The Tribunal has miserably failed to construe the impugned order of termination. 11. The Tribunal has miserably failed to construe the impugned order of termination. It had lifted the veil and peeped into the personal file of the petitioner also and then found that there was allegation against the petitioner which bad compelled the punishing authority to remove him from service yet it stated that the order of termination of the petitioner's services was simpliciter and not by way of punishment. 12. The U. P. Temporary Government Service (termination of service) Rules, 1975 would apply in respect of termination of service of an employee who was appointed temporarily. Rule 3 of the Rules reads as follows : "3. Termination of Service-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any existing rules or orders on the subject, the services of a Government servant in temporary 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. (2) The period of notice shall be one month provided that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith, and on such termination the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances, if any, for the period of the notice or as the case may be, period by for which such notice fails short of one month at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services Provided further that it shall be open to the appointing authority to relieve a Government - servant without any notice or accept notice for a shorter period, without requiring the Government servant to pay any penalty in lieu of notice. Provided also that such notice given by the Government servant against whom a disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated shall be effective only if it is accepted by the appointing; authority, provided in the case of a contemplated disciplinary proceeding, the Government servant Is informed of the non-acceptance of his notice before the expiry of that notice." The provisions of this rule would not apply where a temporary Government servant is sought to be removed by way of punishment. If there is a termination simpliciter, which is intended to be ordered in respect of a Government, servant Rule 3 of the Rules can be invoked. If there is a termination simpliciter, which is intended to be ordered in respect of a Government, servant Rule 3 of the Rules can be invoked. But if a Government servant, who Is governed by these rules is sought to be removed on the ground of misconduct, embezzlement or lack of Integrity, something more is required to be done before the termination of such Government servant is ordered. Something more must; be consistent with the constitutional provisions and with the principles of natural justice. At least a bearing is to be given to such Government employes to explain his misconduct, lack of integrity and negligence of duty. This rule does not provide that a Government servant can be removed from service unilaterally without affording an opportunity of being heard on the ground of misconduct, embezzlement or lack of integrity. The Tribunal has fecund that the order of dismissal is grounded on the record maintained by the respondents No. 3 and 4 in his personal file, which has revealed to the Tribunal that the grounds for termination of the petitioner's services were his negligence, his misconduct, his lacking of integrity and the two adverse: remarks earned by him during the span of four years of his service. 13. The learned counsel for the parties has invited my attention to a few authorities also Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India. AIR 1984 SC 636 , says that the order of discharge in that case was merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct. Reasonable opportunity to defend was not given. The order was struck; down. It was held that even though the order of discharge may be non-committal, It cannot stand because the cause of discharge was the alleged misconduct of the petitioner in that case. In Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1431 it was held that the termination of service of an adhoc employee on the ground of unsuitability is bad if the ground of unsuitability was not conveyed in advance to the employee. A communication in advance pointing out the defects in the work of the employee and deficiency in his performance is necessary and if that has not been done, the termination of service of such an employee would be arbitrary. A communication in advance pointing out the defects in the work of the employee and deficiency in his performance is necessary and if that has not been done, the termination of service of such an employee would be arbitrary. In Nepal Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1985 SC 84 , termination of service of temporary sub-Inspector of Police was quashed on the ground that it was based one mere allegations and unspecific and vague grounds. It was further held by the Supreme Court that where allegations of misconduct are levelled against a Government servant, Article 311 (2) of the Constitution would be attracted. The Supreme Court sounded a note of caution for circumventing the constitutional provision of Article 311 (2) which is to be viewed with great disfavour. In State of Maharashtra v. Veerappa R. Saboji, AIR 1980 SC 42 , it was held that termination of a probationer or temporary Government servant by way of punishment casting stigma on him cannot be made without following the procedure prescribed under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. However, the order of termination of service of a temporary Government servant may be upheld if it does not disclose any stigma or penal consequences against the Government servant and is merely a termination simpliciter. However, if the order discloses that stigma is cast on a Government servant or that it visits him with penal consequence then plainly the case is one of punishment. Another kind of case may still be there. If the termination of service is intended by way of punishment and the order is framed as a termination simpliciter in such a case if the Government servant is able to establish from the material on record that the order is in fact passed by way of punishment, the innocence of language in which the order is framed will not protect it if the procedure contemplated under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution has not been followed. In Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India. AIR 1964, SC 1854 a case to temporary employee whose services were terminated under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules because of unsatisfactory work and not because of abolition of post was being considered. In Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India. AIR 1964, SC 1854 a case to temporary employee whose services were terminated under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules because of unsatisfactory work and not because of abolition of post was being considered. Rule 5 of the Rules authorised the Government to terminate the services of a temporary Government servant by giving him one month's notice or on payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice and the State Government had invoked the said rule in respect of the petitioner in that case. The work of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory,, A preliminary enquiry was held against the petitioner in that case and following that enquiry, his services were dispensed with in accordance with Rule 5. The preliminary enquiry was held not to be a departmental enquiry. Preliminary enquiry is usually held to satisfy the Government that there is a reason to dispense with the services of a temporary employee for his unsatisfactory work. It is only a fact finding enquiry in order to be used by the Government to make its own assessment about the suitability of temporary employee. The order of termination in that case was held not; to be by way of punishment. Therefore, Article 311 (2) would not get attracted. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Dr. Md. S. Iskander All, AIR 1980 SC 1242, termination of probationer's service appointed on temporary post after dropping enquiry against him. The work of the probationer was not found satisfactory. The termination did not attract Article 311 of the Constitution is the ratio of the said authority. The petitioner in that case was appointed as a temporary Medical Officer in the Oil and Natural Gas commission. The order of appointment had certain conditions regulating his appointment. Two of the conditions were that his services could be terminated at any time by one month's notice to be gives by either side. The appointing authority had reserved the right of terminating the services of appointee without notice or before the expiration of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to him of the sum equivalent to pay and allowance for the period of notice or the unexpired period thereof. The second conditions was that the petitioner was to remain on probation for a period of one year from the date of appointment. The second conditions was that the petitioner was to remain on probation for a period of one year from the date of appointment. The period of probation could be extended in the discretion of the apposing authority. During the period of probation the services of the petitioner in that case could be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reason whatsoever. During the period of probation, there were some reports against him. Departmental enquiry was set up which did not proceed in the matter nor was any punishment imposed upon him. Bis period of probation was extended by another six months. Before terminating his services there was express order either confirming him or extending the period of probation. The petitioner in that case is said to have been careless and lacking in sence of responsibility. In that case it was held that the impugned order of termination was not passed by way of punishment. The impugned order of punishment was held to be the order of termination, simpliciter, therefore, it did not attract the provision of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution In Delhi Transport Undertaking v. Balbir Saran Goel, AIR 1971 SC 836 , it was held that if the employer chooses to terminate the services in accordance with the rules after giving one month's notice or pay, in lieu thereof it cannot amount to termination of service for misconduct within the ambit of the rules. Where the employee was not removed for some misconduct and the removal was not by way of punishment the procedure laid down in the rules for holding enquiry was held not applicable. State of U. P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991 (1) SCC 691 , was also cited by the learned Standing counsel in support of his contention that the petitioner being a temporary servant cciuld be removed from service and that removal from service in his case was in accordance with the rules, therefore, it did not require to follow the procedure laid down in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. An adhoc or temporary Government servant cannot claim that last come first go' principle should be applied where he is effected for unsuitability on assessment of work in terms of contract of service. He cannot have any complaint against retaining the juniors in service. An adhoc or temporary Government servant cannot claim that last come first go' principle should be applied where he is effected for unsuitability on assessment of work in terms of contract of service. He cannot have any complaint against retaining the juniors in service. There can be no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in such a case. The petitioner's work in that case was assessed and found unsuitable on consideration of adverse entry and preliminary enquiry report, the order of termination was held to be not punitive so as to attract Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, 14. It is true that temporary Government servant has no right to hold the post permanently. His services are liable to be terminated by giving him one month's notice without assigning any reason either under the terms of contract or under the relevant statutes regulating the terms and conditions of services of temporary Government servants. IT was held that a temporary Government servant can be removed on account of unsuitability misconduct or inefficiency. He can be dismissed from service by way of punishment also. If the punitive action is proposed against such a Government servant, then an enquiry by framing charges and giving opportunity to the Government servant in accordance with the provision of Article 311 (2/ of the Constitution is imperative. A temporary Government servant is also entitled to protection under Article 311 (2) in the same manner as a permanent Government servant, if his services are sought to be terminated by way of punishment The Supreme Court also held that the form of the order is not conclusive and it is open to Court to determine the true nature of the order. Against the petitioner in that case there were adverse remarks for the year 1977-78. A preliminary enquiry 'was held in the matter. However, no departmental enquiry was ordered but on the basis of the preliminary enquiry the petitioner's services in that case were terminated in accordance with the conditions of the contract of service. After going through the various authorities it emerges that a temporary Government servant can be removed from service in accordance with the contract of service if he is not required by the employer or his work is not satisfactory. After going through the various authorities it emerges that a temporary Government servant can be removed from service in accordance with the contract of service if he is not required by the employer or his work is not satisfactory. On the basis of adverse entries in the character roll an assessment can be formed by the employer as to whether it is necessary to retain a temporary employee or terminate his services for his unsatisfactory work. A temporary employee has no right to hold the post. At the same time his services cannot be dispensed with by way of punishment without following the procedure established by law. 15. In the present case had the services of the petitioner been terminated only on the assessment of adverse entries in his service record, the petitioner probably would not have challenged the termination order as the said order in that case would have been termed as termination simpliciter and in accordance with the terms of contract of service, but the personal file maintained by the respondents No. 3 and 4 and scrutinised by the respondent No. 1 would reveal that the termination order of the petitioner's services is grounded on the allegations of embezzlement, lack of integrity, negligence in duty and gross misconduct. In such circumstances it cannot be countenenced that the procedure established by law has to be given 'goby' and the order of termination in an innocent language which is by way of punishing the petitioner, could be teamed simpliciter. The Tribunal has gone behind the order of termination and found certain facts from the record of the respondents No. 3 and 4. The facts on which the termination is founded are brought out by the Tribunal in its order dated 13-1-1982. After that it cannot be said that the order of termination was simpliciter. 16. The order of termination of the petitioner's services is by way of punishment. He has not been given an opportunity of being heard. The allegations on which the respondents No. 3 and 4 had found him lacking in integrity, having committed embezzlement, being negligent in duty or having indulged in misconduct should have been brought to his notice and his explanation sought. He has not been given an opportunity of being heard. The allegations on which the respondents No. 3 and 4 had found him lacking in integrity, having committed embezzlement, being negligent in duty or having indulged in misconduct should have been brought to his notice and his explanation sought. Without doing that the petitioner's services have been terminated, In the peculiar circumstances of this case the provision of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India would apply to the petitioner also and any order passed to his peril at his back would get vitiated because the order of termination has visited him with penal consequences and has cast stigma on him. The stigmas which the order of termination intends to cast on him are writ large on the face of the order of the Tribunal dated 13-1-1982. For the reasons stated above the order of termination of the petitioner's services cannot be sustained as it was achieved at his back without giving him an opportunity to explain his conduct. The order of termination as such is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural Justice. The order of termination is against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and is liable to be struck down. 17. If the order is a simpliciter order of termination, then the petitioner's juniors would not have been retained in service and the principle last come first go' would apply but I am not going into that aspect of the matter because those juniors are not before the Court nor is it desirable to say anything against those persons, who are junior to the petitioner but still In service. The petitioner's services could not be terminated by way of punishment. That is all which can be said in this petition. 18. Accordingly the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of termination of the petitioner's services dated 17-6-1978 and the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 13-1-1982 whereby the termination of the petitioner's services was upheld are hereby quashed as being invalid, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is entitled to get costs of this writ petition also, Petition allowed.