J. K. MATHUR, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion, the petitioner seeks quashing of an order passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal on 15-2-1978 and also the order issued by the Opposite Party No. 3 passed on 23-3-1976 and the order passed by opposite party No. 4, the Commissioner on 14-1-1978. 2. The petitioner was working as a Tractor Operator-cum-Driver in the Health Section of the Municipal Board, Sultanpur. Though there were two tractors and two such posts yet the petitioner did the entire work. He worked for about seven years and did not have any adverse report or grievance He moved for being confirmed but no action was taken on that application. In August, 1976, the President of India was to visit Sultanpur. The petitioner worked day and night and fell ill because of which he pro ceeded on leave from 16-8-1976 to 23-8-1976. When he came back to join on 24-8-1976, he was informed that his services have been terminated. The order of termination was however communicated to him on 28-8- 1976 by a registered post. He filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner who dismissed it on the 1978 as being barred by time. The petitioner then approached the Tribunal which again dismissed his claim by the impugned order passed on 15-12 -. 978 directing only one months salary to be given to the petitioner in lieu of notice. 3. These orders have now been challenged on behalf of the petitioner on the ground firstly, that the notice having not been given to him, the order is bad and, secondly, on the ground that the order by itself is without any reason to support it an is, therefore, arbitrary. 4. So far as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned, not mentioning that the petitioner would be entitled to one months salary in lieu of the notice, would not invalidate the notice as has been held in the case of Director of Technical Education, Kanpur v. John Mohammad, 1975 ALJ 27. 5. However, reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the reports sent by the District Magistrate as an Administrator of Nagar Palika, Sultanpur to the Commissioner in the appeal. 5. However, reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the reports sent by the District Magistrate as an Administrator of Nagar Palika, Sultanpur to the Commissioner in the appeal. In this, it was reported that there was no adverse remarks in the entire personal record of the petitioner and that only on an application moved by the petitioner for confirmation, the President of Municipal Board that he was careless. 6. No order can be passed by any Executive Authority arbitrarily. The order of termination can be passed without disclosing the reason but it does not mean that it can be passed without any reason whatsoever. In this case, in view of the fact that there was no adverse remark against the petitioner, there was nothing to show that he was not suitable for the post. No other explanation has been offered by the Municipal Board for termina tion of the services of the petitioner. 7. Even if the petitioner being a temporary employee, was found to be unsuitable, ho ought to have been informed of his unsuitability before his services were terminated specially when he had already worked for more than seven years. In this, I am supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. M. S. Sumati P. Shere v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1431 . 8. In view of the above, I find that the order of termination in this case is arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. 9. In view of the fact that the order of termination was passed in the year 1976 no order about the back wages is being passed. It will be open to the petitioner to satisfy the opposite parties about his entitlement to the wages during the interim period which shall be considered by the opposite parties. 10. The petition is, therefore, allowed accordingly. Petition allowed. .