JUDGMENT : S.C. Verma, Dev Kant Trivedi, JJ. The Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal, by order dated 31.12.1980 has set aside the termination order terminating the services of Radhey Shyam Gupta by order dated 23.1.1976 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd., Lucknow. 2. The Petitioner, U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. have challenged the impugned order of U.P. Public Services Tribunal, mainly on the ground that the Tribunal committed manifest error of law in holding that the action of termination was by way of punishment founded on misconduct and no opportunity was afforded to the delinquent. 3. The opposite party No. 1 was appointed by order dated 27.7.1973 on the post of Branch Manager in the pay scale of Rs. 300-900 on temporary basis. The temporary services of Sri Radhey Shyam Gupta were liable to be terminated on one month's notice and he was liable to be transferred to any District. The opposite party No. 1 was initially posted at Meerut. 4. It was alleged by the opposite party No. 1 before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal that the order of termination has been passed due to malice and bias of one Sri Ram Pal Singh, General Manager of the Corporation, who was interested in one Sri Balbir Singh Chauhan, an Assistant Sales Officer against whom the opposite party No. 1 had lodged complaints. The opposite party No. 1 has also alleged that the Secretary of the Corporation required him to prepare charge-sheet against Sri Balbir Singh Chauhan for the irregularities committed by him. The opposite party No. 1 was transferred to Varanasi by order dated 9.5.1974 but the General Manager (Fertilizer) Sri Rampal Singh insisted to prepare the charge-sheet and thereafter to proceed to Varanasi. The opposite party No. 1 was required to join at Lucknow on 27.6.1974. In December, 1974 he was transferred again to Agra where he joined in January, 1975. The opposite party No. 1 also reported against some employees at Agra who had committed serious irregularities. Sri Bhisham Pal Singh, against whom, the opposite party No. 1 has lodged reports, was close relation of Sri Ram Pal Singh. 5. The opposite party No. 1 was posted to Lucknow and he was required to improve his working by the General Manager (Fertilizer) by order dated 24.9.1975. Sri Bhisham Pal Singh, against whom, the opposite party No. 1 has lodged reports, was close relation of Sri Ram Pal Singh. 5. The opposite party No. 1 was posted to Lucknow and he was required to improve his working by the General Manager (Fertilizer) by order dated 24.9.1975. It has been alleged that due to bias and mala fides, Sri Ram Pal Singh was instrumental in getting the services of opposite party No. 1 terminated by the Managing Director, Sri Iftikhar Husain by order dated 23.1.1976. 6. The Petitioners contested the case before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal and they alleged that the work and conduct of the opposite party No. 1 was not satisfactory and he was served with warnings to improve the work. The Petitioners denied that the action was founded on the report sent by Sri Ram Pal Singh, in which it was reported that the opposite party No. 1 had fraudulently taken Rs. 2,000 from Sri Jai Chand Lal. 7. The U.P. Public Services Tribunal, on the above material on record held that the allegations of bias and mala fides alleged by the opposite party No. 1 have not been specifically denied but that would not be sufficient to dispose of the claim petition only on the ground that Sri Ram Pal Singh was biased or prejudiced. The Tribunal held that there was no material on record on the basis of which a conclusion could be drawn that the work of the opposite party No. 1 was unsatisfactory. The Tribunal has also held that there is ex-parte preliminary enquiry report submitted by Sri Ram Pal Singh against the Respondent No. 1 with regard to the charge of having fraudulently taken Rs. 2,000 from Sri Jai Chand Lal, was the basis of the impugned action of termination. The opposite parly No. 1 was not afforded any opportunity to contest the report nor during the preliminary enquiry, the opposite party No. 1 was asked to show cause or submit his defence. The enquiry report on the basis of which the action has been taken is not correct and as such the order was punitive and is liable to be set aside. The opposite party No. 1 was not given any opportunity and the principles of natural justice were contravened. 8. The enquiry report on the basis of which the action has been taken is not correct and as such the order was punitive and is liable to be set aside. The opposite party No. 1 was not given any opportunity and the principles of natural justice were contravened. 8. The Petitioners have mainly assailed the order of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal by alleging that the impugned action was not founded on any misconduct and the same was not passed by way of punishment. The Petitioners on overall assessment of the work and conduct of the opposite party No 1, were of the opinion that the same was unsatisfactory and as such his services were terminated. The preliminary enquiry was conducted to assess the work of the opposite party No. 1 in which the charge relating to taking of Rs.2,000 fraudulently from Sri Jai Chand Lal was also enquired. However, the impugned action is not based on any misconduct of the Respondent No. 1 but the same has been passed under the terms of contract of service. The Petitioners have alleged that the opposite party No. 1 was warned by letter dated 24th September 1975, with regard to his unsatisfactory work and he was given last warning to improve his work. The opposite party No. 1 was granted time up to 31.3.76 to improve his work otherwise his services were liable to be terminated. A copy of the letter dated 24th September, 1975 formed part of the record before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal and the same was issued by Sri Iftikhar Husain, Managing Director. The opposite party No. 1 was required to submit his reply to the charge of having accepted Rs. 2,000 without furnishing receipt to Sri Jai Chand Lal. The order dated 12.1.1976 requiring the opposite party No. 1 to furnish his reply was issued by Sri Iftikhar Husain, and this order also formed part of the record of the Tribunal. The opposite party No. 1 had submitted his reply through registered letter dated 22.1.1976 denying the said charge and had furnished some explanation. 9. The preliminary report was submitted by Sri Ram Pal Singh to the Managing Director which was on the basis of the order dated 12.1.1976 requiring him to enquire into the matter and submit his report. The opposite party No. 1 had submitted his reply through registered letter dated 22.1.1976 denying the said charge and had furnished some explanation. 9. The preliminary report was submitted by Sri Ram Pal Singh to the Managing Director which was on the basis of the order dated 12.1.1976 requiring him to enquire into the matter and submit his report. In the report, it was reported that his work was very unsatisfactory and he was corrupt, irresponsible and highly inefficient officer. 10. The main question to be decided in the present case is as to whether the U.P. Public Services Tribunal was correct in holding that the action of termination was based on misconduct without affording any opportunity of the action of termination was taken after assessing the work and conduct of the Respondent No. 1 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the service. 11. The materials on record, apart from the preliminary enquiry report establish that the work and conduct of the opposite party No. 1 was unsatisfactory and he was warned to improve his work by order dated 24th September, 1975. The opposite party No. 1 was given time upto 30.3.1976 to improve his work otherwise his services were liable to be terminated. Thus there is material on record to establish that the work of the opposite party No. 1 was unsatisfactory and he was inefficient, and it was for this reason that the action for termination was taken. The finding recorded by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal that the action was based on the misconduct that the opposite party No. 1 had taken Rs. 2,000 fraudulently from Sri Jai Chand Lal is not correct. The above misconduct of the opposite party No. 1 was enquired into and his explanation was taken and after making the overall assessment of the opposite party No. 1's work and conduct, the impugned order of termination was passed. The preliminary enquiry was also conducted to assess the work and conduct of the opposite party No. 1. The Tribunal erred in holding that the ex-parte enquiry report was taken into consideration without asking any reply from opposite party No. 1 or without furnishing copy of the same. The preliminary enquiry was also conducted to assess the work and conduct of the opposite party No. 1. The Tribunal erred in holding that the ex-parte enquiry report was taken into consideration without asking any reply from opposite party No. 1 or without furnishing copy of the same. The enquiry was conducted to assess the work of the opposite party No. 1 as it was decided to dispense with the temporary services of the opposite party No. 1 in accordance with the conditions of service. It was not necessary to have framed any charge or to have conducted any disciplinary enquiry as it is the option of the competent authority either to punish by initiating disciplinary proceedings or to terminate the services of an incumbent under the terms of appointment. 12. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has placed the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court for our consideration: 1. Champaklal Chimanlal Shah Vs. The Union of India (UOI), AIR 1964 SC 1854 2. Nepal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1985) 1 SCC 56 3. Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India and Another, (1984) 2 SCC 369 4. Jarnail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1986 (5) ELJ 57. 5. O.P. Bhandari Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 337 6. Narendra Purshotam Umrao Vs. B.B. Gujral and Others, (1979) 2 SCC 637 . AND 7. D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259 . 13. The decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 would not be applicable in view of the facts of the present case particularly when there was sufficient material to indicate the unsatisfactory work and conduct of the Respondent No. 1. We do not propose to deal with the above eases in view of the other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which apply on all fours. 14. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, (1991) 1 SCC 691 , 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 month's notice without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant 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 satisfactory or that his continuance in service is not in public interest on account of his unsuitability, misconduct or inefficiently, 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 hold a formal inquiry by framing charges and giving opportunity to the Government servant in accordance with the provisions 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 arises 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 punishment. It is now well-settled that the form of the order is not conclusive and it is open to the Court to determine the true nature of the order. * * * Learned counsel for the Respondent urged that the allegations made against the Respondent in respect of the audit of Boys Fund of an educational institution were incorrect and he was not given any opportunity of defence during the inquiry which was held ex-parte. Had he been given the opportunity, he would have placed correct facts before the Inquiry Officer. His services were terminated on allegation of misconduct founded on the basis of or ex-parte enquiry report. He further referred to the allegations made against the Respondent in the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court and urged that these facts demonstrate that the order of termination was in substance, an order of termination founded on the allegations of misconduct, and the ex-parte enquiry report. In order to determine this question, it is necessary to consider the nature of the Respondent's right to hold the post and to ascertain the nature and purpose of the inquiry held against him. As already observed, the Respondent being a temporary Government servant had no right to hold the post, and the competent authority terminated his services by an innocuous order of termination without casting any stigma on him. As already observed, the Respondent being a temporary Government servant had no right to hold the post, and the competent authority terminated his services by an innocuous order of termination without casting any stigma on him. The termination order does not indict the Respondent for any misconduct. The inquiry which was held against the Respondent was preliminary in nature to ascertain the Respondent's suitability and continuance in service. There was no element of punitive proceedings as no charges had been framed, no Inquiry Officer was appointed, no findings were recorded, instead a preliminary inquiry was held and on the report of the preliminary inquiry the competent authority terminated the Respondent's services by an innocuous order in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service. Mere fact that prior to the issue of order of termination, an inquiry against the Respondent in regard to the allegations of unauthorised audit of Boys Fund, was held does not change the nature of the order of termination into that of punishment as after the preliminary inquiry the competent authority took no steps to punish the Respondent instead it exercised its power to terminate the Respondent's service in accordance with the contract of service and the Rules. 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 were a preliminary enquiry into allegations against a temporary 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." 15. In the case of Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and others, (1992) 1 SCC 524 Supp, it has been held: However, this Court has made it clear that if the competent authority decides to take punitive action, it may do so by holding a formal inquiry by framing charges and giving an opportunity to the Government servant in accordance with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. In the instant case, as we have already noticed (supra), the termination is not punitive action. According to the State of U.P. the services of the Appellant were terminated as per the rules on account of his unsuitability by giving him one month's salary, which statement is not challenged before us. In the instant case, as we have already noticed (supra), the termination is not punitive action. According to the State of U.P. the services of the Appellant were terminated as per the rules on account of his unsuitability by giving him one month's salary, which statement is not challenged before us. Therefore, we hold that the dictum laid down in the above Kaushal Kishore Shukla's case (supra) will squarely apply to the facts of the present case and that the order of termination 'simpliciter' cannot be challenged. 16. After considering the law laid down above in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Km. Prem Lata Misra and Ors. 1994 (2) UPLBEC 1213 , 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 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 office 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 month's notice or pay salary 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 as an Assistant Project Officer, the Respondent was appointed and was posted to the place where she had joined. Therefore, her work was supervised by the higher Officers and two Officers have submitted 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. Therefore, her work was supervised by the higher Officers and two Officers have submitted 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 authority 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. 17. The order of termination has not indicated any reason nor does it cast, in any manner, stigma on Respondent No. 1. 18. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the temporary services of the Respondent No. 1 have not been terminated by way of punishment founded on any misconduct but on the other hand, the competent authority has found that the Respondent No. 1 was not fit to be continued in service on account of unsatisfactory work and conduct. There is no material to establish that the Respondent No. 1 had outstanding or meritorious service record. Further in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court even if some ex parte preliminary enquiry has been conducted or disciplinary enquiry has been initiated to enquire into some misconduct, it is the option of the competent authority to withdraw the disciplinary proceedings and take the action of termination of service under the terms of appointment and the same would not be by way of punishment. 19. In the present case, the competent authority has applied his mind and decided to terminate the temporary services of the Respondent No. 1 under the terms of appointment. There is sufficient material on record to establish that the work and conduct of the Respondent No. 1 was unsatisfactory. The Tribunal has illegally held that there was no material to assess the work of the Respondent No. 1 and that the impugned order of termination is by way of punishment and has been passed without affording any opportunity. 20. There is sufficient material on record to establish that the work and conduct of the Respondent No. 1 was unsatisfactory. The Tribunal has illegally held that there was no material to assess the work of the Respondent No. 1 and that the impugned order of termination is by way of punishment and has been passed without affording any opportunity. 20. This is not a case where the employee had outstanding and meritorious service record and the action of termination was only on account of solitary misconduct. In the present case, on the basis of material on record and on overall assessment of the Respondent No. l's work and conduct, the impugned action has been taken. 21. We are of the opinion that the Petitioners have not committed any illegality in resorting to the termination of the service of the Respondent No. 1 under the contract of service. The law laid down in the case of State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra), which has been affirmed by later decisions, is on all fours applicable to the present case. 22. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the order of termination does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor it violates the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.