R. B. MEHROTRA, J. Five petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of U. P. Public Services Claim Tribunal (I) Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as tribunal) dated 13-8-1985 passed in claim No. 94 (i) of l9w-hridayanand Tewari v. State Government through its Revenue Secretary. 2. The facts necessary for the decision of the writ petition, are being succinctly noticed herein below. 3. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as survey kanungo and joined his duties on 22-5-1978, the petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 13-12-1977. the petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 1-5-1977, the petitioner No. 4 was appointed on 27-4-1978 and the petitioner No. 5 was appointed on 27-4-1978. All the petitioners were appointed on the post of Survey Kanungo by the record officer, Gorakhpur on temporary basis against the clear and permanent vacan cies. The contention of the petitioners is that they performed their duties satisfactorily almost for a period of three years, despite it, the services of the petitioners have been arbitrarily terminated by a composite order dated 18-8-1981. The petitioners made representation against the aforesaid order to the Board of Revenue, which was rejected by it on 6- 9-1982. The peti tioners challenged the aforesaid order by filing a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal on the ground that the termination order has been passed against them in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The claim was contested by the State respondents. The tribunal has rejected the claim petition vide order dated 13-8-1995 after perusing the record of the petitioners and coming to the conclusion that the performance of the petitioners was not satisfactory. The order of termination was a simple order of termination. The petitioners, being temporary Govern ment servants, had no right to continue in service. The aforesaid order of the tribunal is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri R. S. Misra at great length and the learned standing counsel. 5. The order of termination was a simple order of termination. The petitioners, being temporary Govern ment servants, had no right to continue in service. The aforesaid order of the tribunal is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri R. S. Misra at great length and the learned standing counsel. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the out set submitted that the public services tribunal has recorded the finding after looking into the service record of the petitioners but the finding recorded by the public services tribunal are perverse and are contrary to the service record perused by the public services tribunal. I directed the standing counsel to produce the service record of all tae five petitioners (sic) to allay this grievance. The record has been so produced by the learned standing counsel. 6. The main contention, which requires examination in the present matter is, as to whether the order of termination has been passed by way of punishment or the order is a simple order of termination. 7. The order of termination passed against all the five petitioners have been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition, it is a composite order, termi nating the services of all the five petitioners. The order is a simple order of termination and has been passed under U. P. Government Servants (termina tion of Service) Rules, 1975. The only aspect which requires examination in the present writ petition is whether the antecedent circumstance establishes that the order of termination was passed by way of punishment. The tribunal has recorded a finding that the service record of the petitioners reveals that their performance had not been satisfactory. The learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that the said finding of the tribunal is not borne out from their service record. The submission of the learned counsel for the peti tioners is that the main ground, on the basis of which the services of the peti tioners have been terminated is that a complaint was made against all the petitioners that they have furnished false experience certificates and on the aforesaid basis, without affording any opportunity to the petitioners to satisfy the concerned authorities, that the experience certificates filed by the petitioners, were not forged, the order of termination has been passed. The learned counsel for the petitioners as also criticized the impugned order of the tribunal on the ground that the tribunal has recorded a finding contrary to the service record that the performance of the petitioners was not satisfactory. There was no adverse entry-in the petitioners character roll and there was absolutely no basis for the respondents to come to the conclusion that the petitioners performance was not satisfactory. In the light of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the service record of the petitioners has been scrutinized. 8. There is only one entry in the character roll of the petitioner No. 1 Sri Hridayanand Tewari, that is of the year 1979-80 wherein it is mentioned that the work is absolutely satisfactory. Integrity certified. No entry in rela tion to other years is maintained in the service record. In his personal file. there is a note of Assistant Record Officer dated 23-7-1981 wherein it is mentioned that a complaint was made against Sri Hridayanand Tewari, Survey Kanungo by village people regarding which an unstained question was asked by Smt. Gauri Devi, M. L. A. alleging that as many as 191 entries of possession have been made falsely by the petitioner and on enquiry the aforesaid complaint was found to be correct and it was also recommended in the aforesaid report that since the services of the petitioner are temporary, the same are liable to be terminated. There is another notice which has been given to the petitioner that is dated 27-1-1981 wherein it is stated that the experience certificate dated 8-7-1969 presented by the petitioner at the time of his appointment issued by the Forest Settlement Officer, Varanasi wherein it is mentioned that the peti tioner has worked as Forest Amin from 20-7-1967 to 8-7-1969 has been proved to be false and a show cause notice was given thereof, as to why the peti tioners services may not be terminated for the charges of cheating and forgery. The petitioners reply to the aforesaid notice is also on record. The record also reveals that an enquiry was also made from the Principal of the school from where the petitioner claimed himself to have filed (sic) High School. The Principal verified the correctness of the certificate filed by the petitioner. The petitioners reply to the aforesaid notice is also on record. The record also reveals that an enquiry was also made from the Principal of the school from where the petitioner claimed himself to have filed (sic) High School. The Principal verified the correctness of the certificate filed by the petitioner. The experience certificate for which notice was given to the petitioner, was given by one Fasihuddin, the then Forest Settlement Officer, Varanasi. Subsequently the aforesaid Officer was not available and the Forest Officer orally informed that no such record is available in the file. No action was taken after receiv ing the reply of the petitioner on the aforesaid count. 9. The tribunal while Considering the case of the petitioner No. 1 in its order dealing with the case of the petitioner No. 1 has mentioned that the petitioner No 1 has shown at different places his, fathers name differently. At one place, he has mentioned Hridayanand Tewari s/o Janaki Nath Tewari, while on other place, he has written Hridayauand Tewari s/o Ram Dhari and in the application, the petitioner has not mentioned his fathers name. He has given two applications for appointment. One application is dated 2-11-1977 the other application is without date. In the affidavit, which he has filed, he has not mentioned his fathers name. At one place he has mentioned his date of birth as 7-7-1933 while at the other place he has mentioned his date of birth as 15-7-1947. The certificate which he has filed is of one Ved Prakash Gupta, the Settlement Officer. This certificate he has annexed with his appli cation where the fathers name mentioned is Ram Dhari. On the basis of the aforesaid perusal of record, the tribunal recorded a finding that Hridayanand Tewari, petitioner No. 1 is a cheat and has filed a forged certificate wherein he has changed his caste and has also filed a false certificate showing him of the backward caste. 10. I have carefully seen the service record of Hridayanand Tewari. It hat been wrongly mentioned by the Public Services Tribunal that in the affidavit, Sri Hridayanand Tewari has not disclosed his parentage. He has clearly mentioned in paragraph 1 of the affidavit that he is son of Janaki Nath Tewari. Hridyanand Tewari has throughout been addressing himself as Hridayanand Tewari and in the application also he has mentioned his name with Sir name tewari. He has clearly mentioned in paragraph 1 of the affidavit that he is son of Janaki Nath Tewari. Hridyanand Tewari has throughout been addressing himself as Hridayanand Tewari and in the application also he has mentioned his name with Sir name tewari. In the personal file of the petitioner No. 1, it seems that by some mistake of the office the certificate and application relating to one Hridayanand s/o Ram Dhari have also been included. The petitioner No. 1 was never informed about any such anomaly is existing in his service record and recording of finding holding the petitioner No. 1 to be a cheat on the basis of service record is patently illegal, if any such finding is to be record ed, the opportunity must be given to the petitioner No. 1 for explaining the circumstances under which the aforesaid contradictory certificates and appli cations have been placed in his service record. There is no such allegation either in the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition or in the written state ment filed before the Public Services Tribunal. The tribunal was wholly un justified in recording the aforesaid finding against Hridayanand Tewari petitioner No. 1. However the said finding of tribunal is not much relevant for the decision of present petition. 11. Service record of petitioner No. 2, namely, Sri Uttam Chandra Yadav reveals that he has been awarded an adverse entry on 11-10-1979 for leaving the office without permission on 28-8-1979, extending his leave and has shown carelessness in sending applications continuously. Besides that, there is a first information report lodged against him under Sections 471/420 of I PC for filing forged certificate. Enquiry was also conducted for filing a forged experience certificate regarding which he has submitted his reply. In the service record there is a letter dated 26-3-1979 issued to him wherein mistake has been pointed out in his survey report and markings and it has been noted that the mistakes are of serious nature and are unpardonable. It was further recorded that he is careless in performance of his duties and he has not been discharging his duties properly. He was warned for future. It may also be mentioned that the petitioners representation against the aforesaid adverse entry has been rejected, as the explanation has not been found to be satisfactory. 12. It was further recorded that he is careless in performance of his duties and he has not been discharging his duties properly. He was warned for future. It may also be mentioned that the petitioners representation against the aforesaid adverse entry has been rejected, as the explanation has not been found to be satisfactory. 12. Likewise, the service record of the petitioner No. 3 namely, Sri Raghubansh Pandey reveals that on 30-7-1981, the Assistant Record Officer, Gorakhpur has reported that all the five petitioners who have filed certificates of experience of Forest Settlement Officer, Varanasi have not been verified, as the record available in the office of District Forest Settlement Officer, Varanasi reveals that the aforesaid petitioners have not worked under Forest Settlement Officer, Varanasi. At the bottom of the report it is also mentioned that since the services of the aforesaid employees are temporary, their services should be terminated by giving them one months notice. This noting is dated 1-8-1981 and is counter signed by the Collector, Gorakhpur on 3-8-1981. This noting also shows that ultimately it was recommended that the services of the peti tioners be terminated after giving them one months notice. In the same continuation a notice was given to the petitioner on 27-1-1981, wherein he was asked to explain as to why action should not be taken against him for cheating and forgery in filing a forged certificate. The petitioner gave reply to the aforesaid notice which was not found satisfactory, as is disclosed in the report of the Assistant Record Officer, dated 30-7-1981 and ultimately the order of collector dated 13-8- 1981, which is in relation to the aforesaid five petitioners, has been passed which is in challenge in this petition. The character roll entry of the petitioner No. 3 dated 30-8-1981 is also satisfactory and has been found to be fully satisfactory and integrity certified. Against this petitioner, there is also a first information report for filing the forged experience certificate. On 187-1978, the petitioner has been severely warned for a defect in survey causing a difference of 10 Kari in measurement and leaving out one mer. 13. The character roll entry of the petitioner No. 4, namely, Sri Achhaibar Nath Tewari and his service record disclose that he was awarded an average entry for performance of survey work. Integrity was certified. 13. The character roll entry of the petitioner No. 4, namely, Sri Achhaibar Nath Tewari and his service record disclose that he was awarded an average entry for performance of survey work. Integrity was certified. Against this petition also there was a first information report lodged for filing a forged certificate. A chargesheet has been served on this petitioner for un-authorisedly changing the plot numbers in the village map, for which the petitioner had no authority and the correction has been made only in the first copy but the said correction is not made in the office copy. Likewise, the other charges were in relation to the preparation of the village records. He has also been served with a show cause notice as to why his services should not be dismissed for filing a forged certificate. 14. The character roll entry dated 31-10-1980 of the petitioner No. 5, namely, Shri Raja Singh endorsement that he has good knowledge of the rules. Performance is ordinary. Integrity is certified. The first information report against him has also been lodged for furnishing a forged certificate. He has also been served with a notice on 3-8-1981 for showing cause as to why his services should not be terminated for furnishing a forged certificate. A report of the Assistant Record Officer dated 30-7-1981 after taking into consideration his explanation, recorded that no proper verification has been made for the experience certificate filed by the petitioner and on this note also same endorse ment of Assistant Record Officer and the Collector, Gorakhpur dated 1-8-1^81 and 3-8-1981 respectively endorses that the services of the petitioner being temporary, should be terminated, This petitioner has also been awarded adverse entry on 12-5-1980 and his explanation has not been found satisfactory and the same has been rejected. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the service records of the petitioners reveal that the basis for termination of the services of the petitioners was the report of the Assistant Record Officer dated 1-8-1981 after holding a preliminary enquiry and arriving at a conclusion that all the petitioners have filed forged experience certificates and on the basis of the aforesaid report, the Collector, Gorakhpur vide his order dated 3-8-1981 endorsed that the services of all the five petitioners be terminated by giving them one months notice. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners that is foundation on the basis of which the petitioner services have been terminated and the record clearly reveals that the order terminating the services of the petitioners is by way of punishment and the same having been passed without affording opportunity to the petitioners, is liable to be quashed. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that had a proper opportunity been given to the petitioners in a regular departmental enquiry for explaining the aforesaid charges, the petitioners would have proved that the period for which the petitioners have filed the experience certificate, the record of the District Settlement Officer Varanasi was stolen and for this reason the experience certificate filed by the petitioners could not be verified. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention : (1) Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, 1974 SC p. 2192. (2) Dr. Mrs. Sumati v. Union of India, AIR 1988 p. 143. (3) Babu Lal v. State ofharyana, AIR 1991 SC p. 1310. (4) Om Prakath Gael v. Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Cor poration, AIR 1991 SC p. 1490. 17. The last decision on which the petitioner counsel as well as the learned standing counsel has placed reliance is the case of Ram Chandra Tripathi v. U. P. Public Services Tribunal IV Lucknow, reported in JT 1994 Vol II, SC p. 84. 18. In this case the services of a Junior Engineer who has put in 16 years of service as temporary Junior Engineer were terminated after 16 years on the ground that the service record of the petitioner was not satisfactory. He was awarded adverse entry and assessment of over all years of service in the past was also not assuring and the appellant was rated as average. The court held : "if on consideration of such service record, appropriate committee did not find the appellant suitable to be confirmed in service and the concerned authority on consideration of poor service record of the appellant has come to the conclusion that he was not suitable to be retained in service and the impugned order was passed without any stigma and in accordance with the service rules the same cannot be held to be illegal or invalid". 19. The Apex Court upheld the order of termination passed against the aforesaid Junior Engineer. 19. The Apex Court upheld the order of termination passed against the aforesaid Junior Engineer. In this decision the Apex Court has placed reliance on its several earlier decisions. The other decisions referred to above on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners have also been considered. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions are not attracted in the present matter. 20. Even though I am not endorsing the finding of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal that the petitioner No. 1 is a cheat and has filed two certi ficates to defraud the Government. On over all assessments of the record, it can not be said that the service records of the petitioners were unblemished and termination of their services on the ground that their performance was not satisfactory is arbitrary. The note of the Assistant Record Officer dated 1-8-1981 and the endorsement by the Collector dated 3-8- 1981 agreeing to proved against the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the U P. Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 is not the founda tion, for terminating the services of the petitioners, at best the aforesaid note can be held to be motive for terminating the petitioners services. According ly, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to get the relief claimed for and the order of Public Services Tribunal impugned in the present writ petition does not suffer from such infirmity, which calls for any inter ference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. 22. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. .