JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat, J. - The order of respondent No. 3 dated 18-9-1984 as also the order of respondent No. 1 dated 9-1-1990 is challenged by the petitioner through the medium of this writ petition. 2. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Copyist in Varg K in Copying Section, Revenue Record Room, Collect-orate, Jaunpur in the year 1983 against a clear vacancy. For appointing the petitioner, it is stated that there was a merit list prepared on 14-6-1982. The petitioner submits that according to the Establishment Rules, he was confirmed after having remained on probation for a period of three months. On 18-9-1984 respondent No. 3, without assigning any reason informed the petitioner that his services were no more required and the same were terminated. The other persons who were selected along with the petitioner on the basis of merit list dated 14-6-1982, have been retained. The petitioner's services alone have been terminated and the post of the petitioner was not abolished The petitioner, thereafter, seems to have filed a claim petition before respondent No. 1 which also was dismissed on 9-1-1990. The petitioner challenges both the orders on number of grounds. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that the order passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 1 are illegal, erroneous and against the constitutional provisions. The foundation of petitioner's termination of services is said to be alleged misconduct which is mentioned in the First Information Report. The petitioner has already been exonerated of the charges. Therefore, no misconduct can be attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner's termination order is said to be based on some allegations contained in the F. I. R. Therefore, it was necessary to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The impugned order of termination is said to be violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India. 4. The Tribunal has found that the petitioner while working in Revenue Record Room, was involved in a criminal case. The First Information Report is said to have been lodged on 19-9-1984 but the petitioner's services were terminated on 18-9-1984. The order of termination of services was simplicitor under the provisions of U. P. Temporary Government servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975. The First Information Report is said to have been lodged on 19-9-1984 but the petitioner's services were terminated on 18-9-1984. The order of termination of services was simplicitor under the provisions of U. P. Temporary Government servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975. Respondent No. 1 has further stated in the impugned order that respondent No. 3 had averred before him that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory. The petitioner's services were terminated because of the unsatisfactory work and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment. It has also held that the order of termination is a simplicitor order of termination which does not cast any stigma to the petitioner. It w as passed before the registration of the F. I. R. The petitioner is said to have been working temporarily, therefore, his services could be terminated in accordance with the Rules. 5. The respondents were given enough time to file counter-affidavit and despite the stop order dated 27-5-1992 no counter was filed. Therefore, this petition is being heard without counter. 6. The petitioner seems to have filed a writ petition which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 13820 of 1984. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner can avail of alternative remedy In pursuance of the dismissal of his earlier writ petition, he seems to have filed claim petition before the Tribunal 7. The order of termination of the petitioner's services, passed by respondent No. 3 is, on the face of it, very innocent but in view of the findings of respondent No. 1 and assertions made in the writ petition which have remained un-rebutted, it is to be seen whether the order of termination is simplicitor or by way of punishment. The petitioner has placed a copy of F.I.R. also on the record. 8. The petitioner was exonerated by the police after the investigation of the F.I.R. which was lodged against the petitioner and some others. In the final report dated 17-6-1986, the petitioner is found not to be guilty of any thing which would require investigation and no allegation was proved against him. 8. The petitioner was exonerated by the police after the investigation of the F.I.R. which was lodged against the petitioner and some others. In the final report dated 17-6-1986, the petitioner is found not to be guilty of any thing which would require investigation and no allegation was proved against him. The FIR registered by the police seems to have been in respect of some allegation against him which had levelled much before the registration of the F.I.R. and on the basis of those allegations, it appears that the Collector has opined that the petitioner's services were no longer required. The final report of the police in respect of the investigation into the allegations against the petitioner, was not challenged or reopened by any authority. Tribunal also has found the petitioner's conduct and work was not satisfactory. This finding of the Tribunal is based on the assertions of respondent No. 3 before it. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner's services have been terminated on the ground of his bad conduct and not on the ground that his services were no more required. The impugned order, therefore, could not be treated as an innocent order but is to be read in the light of the finding of the Tribunal as also of the finding of the police whereby the petitioner and some other was exonerated of the allegations which were levelled against them by respondent No. 3. Those allegations were prior to September, 1984 and on the basis of those allegations respondent No. 3 seems to have stated in their reply before respondent No. 1 that the petitioner's conduct was not satisfactory. The termination order is, therefore, not an order of termination simpliciter, but is by way of a punishment. The assertions of the petitioner in the writ petition in this regard, have not been rebutted, therefore, those assertions are to be treated as un-rebutted. That being so, the termination order of the petitioner is judged in the light of the orders of the Tribunal and the final report of the police into the F. I. R. dated 17-6-1986, makes it manifestly clear that the petitioner's termination of services was by way of punishment and was not a termination simplicitor as is held by the Tribunal. 9. Juniors of the petitioner are said to have been retained in service. 9. Juniors of the petitioner are said to have been retained in service. The order of termination says that the petitioner's services were no more required. It does not give any reason. It is not understandable that why the juniors of the petitioner have been retained if the petitioner's services were no more required. The services of the person who was appointed latter in point of time could have been terminated, if the respondents' ground of termination of services of the petitioner was to be believed. The ground in the impugned order was that the petitioner's services were no more required. In that event `the last come first go' or `first come last go' principle was to be followed. If that has not been followed then the order of termination of petitioner's services is discriminatory as it violates the guarantee under Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution. 10. The petitioner placed reliance on The Manager Govt. Branch Press and another v. D.B. Beliappa, reported in AIR 1979 SC 429 . It was held in the authority that : "The executive, no less than the judiciary, is under a general duty to act fairly. Indeed, fairness founded on reason is the essence of the guarantee epitomised in Articles 14 and 16. The services of a temporary Government servant were terminated without giving any reason while some other employees junior to him were retained in service. The employee was earlier served with a show cause notice questioning his integrity and fidelity but the Government ultimately adhered to the stand that there was no nexus between the show cause notice and termination of service." 11. Held, the termination of the petitioner's services is made arbitrarily and not on ground of un-suitability or other reason. 12. The writ petition, for the reasons stated above, is liable to succeed. The writ petition is allowed and by a writ of certiorari, the order passed by respondent No. 3 on 18-9-1984, whereby the petitioner's services were terminated is quashed, The order dated 9-1-1990 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the petitioner's claim petition is dismissed is also quashed as being erroneous and illegal. The respondents arc directed to take the petitioner back in service and pay him emoluments and other allowances which are admissible to him from the date of reinstatement. The respondents arc directed to take the petitioner back in service and pay him emoluments and other allowances which are admissible to him from the date of reinstatement. He need not be paid salary from the date of impugned order dated 18-9-1984 till his reinstatement because he has not discharged any function and had not worked. Therefore, his salary is payable from the date of his reinstatement which shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before respondent No. 3. The petitioner shall be notionally deemed to have been reinstated from 18-9-1984 but that would be only for the purposes of his seniority and to prevent any break in the petitioner's service. He will get salary only from the date of his actual reinstatement. 13. Certified copy of this Judgment shall be supplied to the petitioner within one week on payment of usual charges.