S. C. VERMA, J. The State of Uttar Pradesh has challenged the order of the U P. Public Services Tribunal dated 4-7-1979 passed in Claim Peti tion No. 735 (I)/iii/78. 2. The respondent No. 1 had filed suit No- 201 of 1973 in the Court of Muasif, Gorakhpur challenging the action of termination of his services. The suit was ultimately transferred to the Tribunal. The respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as Typist-cum-clerk by order dated 4th May, 1962. It is alleged that Block Development Officer was annoyed on account of some incident in October 1969. The respondent No. 1 had taken leave for five days and he remained on leave till 28-1-1970. The order of termination dated 16-12-1969 was served on respondent No. 1 on 21-1-1970 which was challenged in the claim petition on the ground that the same has been passed by way of punishment in violation of Article 311 of the Consti tution. 3. In the written statement filed by the petitioner-opposite parties before the Tribunal it has been stated that the claimant was accorded leave and permission to leave the station with effect from 10-10-1969 to 20-10-1969 and thereafter casual leave from 21-10-1969 to 23-10-1969. After expiry of the leave period the claimant remained absent from duty and sent an appli cation for extension of leave upto 25-11-1969 on account of illness. The claimant was informed to submit a medical certificate duly counter-signed by Civil Surgeon, Basti but neither any leave application was filed nor the certificate of illness and as such the services were terminated by order dated 26-12-1969. 4. The Tribunal held that the work and conduct of the claimant was satisfactory throughout and it was only the Incident of absence without leave and his not returning to duty after expiry of leave and further non-compliance of the direction to submit medical certificate counter-signed by Civil Surgeon is the basis of the petitioners termination. The background in which the order of termination has been passed established that it was by way of punishment and is not an order of termination under the terms of appointment. 5. The background in which the order of termination has been passed established that it was by way of punishment and is not an order of termination under the terms of appointment. 5. The main question for consideration is as to whether in the above facts and circumstances of the case the impugned action of termination is by way of punishment or the order dated 26-12-1969 is an order of termina tion simpliciter, under the terms of appointment and the Service Rules. 6. I have heard the learned standing counsel and Sri K. P. Agarwal appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. 7. In the written statement filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal the stand taken is that the respondent No. I sanctioned station leave with effect from 10-10-1969 to 20-10-1969 and casual leave from 20-10-1969 to 23-10-1969 by the competent authority. The respondent No 1 did not join the duties after expiry of the leave period and remained absent from duties. The respondent No. 1 had sent an application with the request to sanction leave upto 25-11-1969 on the ground of illness and he was informed by letter dated 6-11-1969 to submit a medical certificate duly counter-signed by Civil Surgeon. The respondent No. 1 absented from duty unauthorisedly with effect from 21-10-1969 and his services were terminated by the impugned order as per terms and conditions of his appointment. The temporary services of respondent No. 1 were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason or any opportunity and the same is not by way of punishment. 8. The petitioners, no doubt, have indicated the reason for termina tion of services as unauthorised absence from duty and have not indicated anything with regard to the work and conduct of the respondent No. 1. The unauthorised absence from duty cannot be pointedly classified as a misconduct. The action of absence from duly indicates more of negligence and indifference towards work. It more relects of inefficiency and unsatis factory work and conduct. In the background of the above facts, the impugned action for absence from duty would not be by way of punishment. The absence from duty may have been taken as a major consideration but is not solely founded as misconduct which may lead to an action by way of punishment. 9. In the background of the above facts, the impugned action for absence from duty would not be by way of punishment. The absence from duty may have been taken as a major consideration but is not solely founded as misconduct which may lead to an action by way of punishment. 9. The impugned order of termination has not indicated any reason nor does is casts in any manner stigma on respondent No. 1. Even other wise if the impugned action of termination is alleged to be founded on the aforesaid reason of unauthorised absence from duty, it is the option of the Competent Authority either to punish the incumbent by initiating full-fledged disciplinary proceedings or to terminate the services of the incumbent under the terms of appointment or Service Rules. 10. In State of V. P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991 SCD 1027, it has been held : "a temporary Government servant has no right to hold the post, his services are liable to be terminated by giving him one months notice without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the rele vant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary Government servants. A temporary Government servant can, however, be dismissed from service by way of punishment. Whenever, the competent authority is satisfied that the work and conduct of a temporary servant is not satis factory or that his continuance in service is not in public interest on account of his unsuitability, misconduct or ineffici ency, it may either terminate his services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the service or the relevant rules or it may decide to take punitive action against the temporary Government servant. If it decides to take punitive action it may held a formal inquiry by framing charges and giving oppor tunity to the Government servant in accordance with the provi sions of Article 311 of the Constitution. Since a temporary Government servant is also entitled to the protection of Article 311 (2) in the same manner as a permanent Government servant, very often the question, whether an order of termination is in accordance with the contract of service and relevant rules regulating the temporary employment or it is by way of punish ment. Since a temporary Government servant is also entitled to the protection of Article 311 (2) in the same manner as a permanent Government servant, very often the question, whether an order of termination is in accordance with the contract of service and relevant rules regulating the temporary employment or it is by way of punish ment. " **** "in A. G. Benjamins case (supra) the appellant was temporarily employed as a Store Officer in the Central Tractor Organisation his services were terminated after the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 by granting him one months salary in lieu of notice. A. G. Benjamin contended that the order of termination was in fact an order of punishment which had been passed without affording him the protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. In that case before the issue of termination order, a notice had been issued to Benjamin for showing cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken on the allegations made against him in respect of which the charges had been framed and an enquiry officer had been appointed. After the charges were framed and the explanation of Benjamin was obtained the Chairman of The Central Tractor Organisation submitted a notice to the Government that the departmental proceedings may take much longer time and he was not sure that after going through all the formalities of departmental enquiry Benjamin will be dealt in the way he deserved, therefore, he suggested that action should be taken under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 for terminating his services by giving him one months salary in lieu of notice as he was a temporary Govern ment servant. The Minister concerned accepted the recom mendations, order of termination was issued terminating the services of Benjamin. While assailing the order of termination, it was seriously contended before this Court that in view of the charges being framed and the enquiry officer having been appointed the order of termination in substance was an order of punishment and the recourse to the temporary service rules had been taken only to circumvent Article 311 of the Constitu tion. The Constitution Bench repelled the contention and held that the preliminary enquiry held against the Government servant must not we taken to mean that the Government had taken decision to inflict major punishment on Benjamin. The Constitution Bench repelled the contention and held that the preliminary enquiry held against the Government servant must not we taken to mean that the Government had taken decision to inflict major punishment on Benjamin. The Court held that no temporary Government servant is entitled to opportunity in the preliminary enquiry as "there is no element of punitive proceeding in such an inquiry, the idea in holding such an inquiry is not to punish the temporary Govern ment servant but just to decide whether he deserves to be continued in service or not". Further the Constitution Bench held that even if formal departmental inquiry is initiated against the temporary Government servant, it is open to the competent authority to drop further proceedings in the depart mental enquiry against the temporary Government servant and to have recourse to rules applicable to a temporary Government servant for terminating his services. The Court observed as under :- "if therefore the authority decides, for some reason, to drop the formal departmental enquiry even though it had been initiated against the temporary Government servant, it is still open to the authority to make an order of discharge simpliciter in terms of the contract of service or the relevant statutory rule. In such cases the order of termination of services of the temporary Government servant which in form and in substance is no more that his discharge effected under the terms of contract or the relevant rule cannot, in law, be regarded as his dismissal, because the appointing authority was actuated by the motive that the said servant did not deserve to be continued in service for some alleged inefficiency or misconduct. " We have referred to the above decisions in detail to dispel any doubt about the correct position of law. It is erroneous to hold that where a preliminary enquiry into allegations against a tempo rary Government servant is held or where a disciplinary enquiry is held but dropped or abandoned before the issue of order of termination, such order is necessarily punitive in nature. " 11. It is erroneous to hold that where a preliminary enquiry into allegations against a tempo rary Government servant is held or where a disciplinary enquiry is held but dropped or abandoned before the issue of order of termination, such order is necessarily punitive in nature. " 11. The above view has been affirmed in the case of State of U. P. v. Prem Lata Mishra, 1994 (4) SCC 189 and it has been held : "this Court, considered the entire case law elaborately and had held that the termination is in terms of the order of appointment and that therefore, it is not by way of punishment as a punitive measure. Accordingly the need to conduct an inquiry into the alleged misconduct does not arise and the termination of service in terms of the contract was held to be valid. It is settled law that the Court can lift the veil of the innocuous order to find whether it is the foundation or motive to pass the offending order. If misconduct is the foundation to pass the order then an enquiry into misconduct should be conducted and an action according to law should follow. But if it is motive, it is not incumbent upon the competent officer to have the enquiry conducted and the service of a temporary employee could be terminated, in terms of the order of appointment or rules giving one months notice or pay in lieu thereof. Even if an enquiry was initiated it could be dropped midway and action could be taken in terms of the rules or order of appointment. The same principle applies to the facts in this case. It is seen that the respondent was appointed by direct recruitment by Selection Committee constituted by the Government in this behalf and on finding about the suitability to the post of an Asstt. Project Officer, the respondent was appointed and was posted to the place where she had joined. Thereafter, her work was supervised by the higher officers and two officers have sub mitted their reports concerning the performance of the duties by the respondent. She was regularly irregular in her duties, insubordinate and left the office during office hours without permission etc. On consideration thereof, the competent autho rity found that the respondent is not fit to be continued in service as her work and conduct were unsatisfactory. She was regularly irregular in her duties, insubordinate and left the office during office hours without permission etc. On consideration thereof, the competent autho rity found that the respondent is not fit to be continued in service as her work and conduct were unsatisfactory. Under these circumstances, the termination is for her unsuitability or unfitness but not by way of punishment as a punitive measure and one in terms of the order of appointment and also the rules. Accordingly the High Court has gone against settled law in allowing the writ petition. " 12. In view of the above law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the temporary services of the petitioner have not been terminated by way of punishment, on the other hand the competent authority had found that the respondent was not fit to be conti nued in service, and his absence from duty unauthorisedly reflected his unsatisfactory work and conduct and the impugned action is on account of his unsuitability. Further there is no material on record to establish that the respondent No. 1 had outstanding or meritorious services record and this was the only incident on account of which adverse opinion had been framed. 13. In view of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, oven if, for some misconduct, the disciplinary enquiry has proceeded, it is the option of the competent authority to withdraw the disciplinary enquiry and take the action of termination of services under the terms of appointment or under the Service Rules and the same would not be by way of punish ment. In the present case also the competent authority has applied its mind and decided to terminate temporary services of the petitioner under the terms of appointment. The impugned action did not require any opportunity to be given to the respondent No. 1 to explain his conduct. The Tribunal has illegally held that the impugned order of termination is by way of punishment and has been passed without affording any opportunity. 14. For the reasons stated above I am of the view that the order of termination does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor it violate^ the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The petition is allowed, and the order of Tribunal dated 4-7-1979 is quashed. Petition allowed. .