R. H. ZAIDI, R. P. NIGAM, JJ. ( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for Issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 5. 2. 1998 passed by the U. P. State Public Services Tribunal. Lucknow, allowing the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 and setting aside the order of termination dated 18. 11. 1988 passed by petitioner No. 3. Prayer for a writ in the nature of mandamus for a" direction to the respondent No. 2 not to implement the impugned order has also been made. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Clerk in Industries Department. Eastern Zone. Varanasi, on 23. 12. 1963. The services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated by petitioner No. 3 the Joint director of Industry. Eastern Zone. Varanasi, by order dated 18. 11. 1988. Challenging the validity of the said order respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition under Section 4 of U. P. Public services Tribunal Act. 1975, pleading that his services, prior to the impugned termination was passed, were once terminated by an incompetent authority. The validity of which was challenged by the said respondent and ultimately the said order was set aside by respondent No. 2 with the direction that the said respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to dearness and other allowances and to other benefits from the date of termination. It was stated that although the respondent No. 1 was permitted to join his duties but the amount of arrears of salary and allowances was not paid, inspite of repeated demands. But by repeated demands made by the said respondent the General manager, District Industry Centre. Ballia, got annoyed and he started manoeuvring grounds against him with a view to dismiss him from service. It was on 16. 4. 1988 the said respondent was granted station leave and was permitted to go to Jaunpur for one day ; but on arrival at jaunpur he suddenly fell 111. " He was initially treated at P. H. C. Somi, district Jaunpur. The medical Officer of P. H. C. advised him to take complete rest. It was on 16. 4. 1988 the said respondent was granted station leave and was permitted to go to Jaunpur for one day ; but on arrival at jaunpur he suddenly fell 111. " He was initially treated at P. H. C. Somi, district Jaunpur. The medical Officer of P. H. C. advised him to take complete rest. On account of illness, the respondent No. 1 had to apply for grant of medical leave with effect from 18. 4. 1988 to 11. 5. 1988. As the illness of the respondent No. 1 continued, therefore, he had to apply for extension of leave twice and ultimately he was hospitalised at District Hospital, Jaunpur, on 26. 10. 1988. He was discharged therefrom on 4. 11. 1988. Thereafter 6. 11. 1988 being Sunday, therefore, he submitted his joining report on 7. 11. 1988 before the District Magistrate. Ballia, as general Manager, District Industry Centre, Ballia, was not present in the office on the said date. It was pleaded that the respondent No. 1 started signing the attendance register with effect from 7. 11. 1988 but he was not allotted work by the General Manager inspite of his requests and applications. It was on 16. 11. 1988 that the respondent No. 1 attended the office signed the attendance register and sent all the relevant papers pertaining to his illness to the Joint Director of Industries by post complaining that the General Manager was not permitting him to join. On 16. 11. 1988 the respondent No. 1 also came to know that the General Manager made a complaint against him to the effect that the said respondent absented from duty, suppressing the leave application and medical certificate submitted by him. On the basis of the said complaint, the services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated by the respondent No. 3 by order dated 18. 11. 1988 which was communicated to the said respondent on 25. 11. 1988. It was pleaded that the order of termination was actually, the order of punishment and was also passed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the persons who have Juniors to the respondent No. 1 were retained in service and the services of the said respondent were dispensed with and that the order of termination was passed in violation of provision of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) THE petitioners have contested the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1 pleading that the order of termination was passed in the terms and conditions of the order of appointment and in accordance with the provision of U. P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of service) Rules, 1975. that the leave application filed by the respondent No. 1 was not finalised, he was granted leave without pay for 285 days, and for 188 days on half salary, that he Indulged in making complaint against the General Manager, District Industry Centre. Ballia, to the Joint director, Industry. Eastern Zone, Varanasi and was guilty of misconduct. It was pleaded that charge-sheet was framed against the respondent No. 1; but the same was not Issued and his services were terminated in accordance with the aforesaid Rules. The claim petition according to the petitioners was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) PARTIES produced evidence in support of their cases, oral and documentary. The State Public services Tribunal after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the order of termination was passed by way of punishment without following the procedure prescribed for the same and in violation of provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal has recorded the following finding : "although these facts have been denied by the opposite parties but they have specifically stated in para 13 of the written statement that the petitioner had indulged in making complaints against the opposite party No. 4 directly to opposite party No. 3 without obtaining prior permission and against the Rules. This fact, I find, clearly supports the petitioners contention of the annoyance of opposite party No. 4. It is indicative of the fact that it could only be the basis for passing the termination order against the petitioner and, I find and agree with the petitioners contention that the impugned termination order is punitive and has been passed by way of punishment. Under the circumstances it was necessary that the petitioner should have been given prior opportunity of hearing and the order could have been passed only after holding a full fledged proper enquiry against the petitioner. It has certainly not been done and the termination order, thus, in my view is not legal and proper and it can also not be allowed to be maintained. It has certainly not been done and the termination order, thus, in my view is not legal and proper and it can also not be allowed to be maintained. " ( 5 ) HAVING recorded the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal set aside the order of termination dated 18. 11. 1988 by the Impugned judgment, hence the present petition. ( 6 ) LEARNED standing counsel vehemently urged that it is correct that against the respondent No. 1 chargesheet was also framed but the same was not served upon him inasmuch as the petitioners had a right to terminate the services of respondent No. 1 who was holding the post of Clerk in temporary capacity. It was also urged that the order of termination under the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be held to be an order of punishment, The view taken to the contrary by the Tribunal is manifestly erroneous and illegal and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 supported the validity of the judgment and order passed by the respondent No. 2. It was urged that from the material on the record it was conclusively proved that the impugned order of termination was passed by way of punishment without following the procedure prescribed for the same. The said order was thus, hit by Article 311 of the Constitution of India and was rightly set aside by the tribunal. The writ petition, therefore, was liable to be dismissed. ( 7 ) WE have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. ( 8 ) CLAUSES (1) and (2) of Article 311 of Constitution of India provide as under : "311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the union of a State.-- (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. " ( 9 ) IT is well-settled in law that provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India also extend and apply to the services of the temporary civil servants as well as to the probationers if their services are terminated by way of punishment. It is also well-settled in law that in cases where validity of the order of termination is challenged, the Court or authority hearing the case, can look into the back-ground and all attendant circumstances under which the order of termination was passed, in order to find out whether form of the order was only a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct and if the Court or the competent authority comes to the conclusion that the said order was passed by way of punishment, without complying with the provisions of Article 311 (2 ). It is open to the Court or the competent authority to set aside the said order. ( 10 ) IN State of V. P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla. 1991 (I) SCC 691 , Supreme Court ruled that if on perusal of character roll entries or on the basis of the preliminary enquiry on the allegations made against the employee, the competent authority is satisfied that the employee is not suitable for the service, the services of the temporary employee may be terminated by giving him one months notice without assigning any reasons, either under the terms of the contract providing such termination or under relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary Government Servant. It was further observed that even the temporary Government servant can be dismissed from service by way of punishment and that if the competent authority decides to take punitive action, it may hold formal enquiry by framing charges, and giving opportunity to the Government servant in accordance with the provisions of Article 311 of the constitution of India since the temporary Government servant is also entitled to protection to article 311 (2) of the Constitution in the same manner as a permanent Government servant. ( 11 ) AGAIN Honble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the decision of Kaushal kishore Shuklas case (supra) in Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State of U. P. , AIR 1992 SC 496 , was pleased to rule as under : "however, this Court made it clear that if the competent authority decides to take punitive action. It may do so by holding formal enquiry by framing charges and giving opportunity to the government servant in accordance with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of india. " ( 12 ) IN the present case. Tribunal relying upon statement of fact made in paragraph 13 of the written statement filed by petitioners before it, held that conduct of respondent No. 1 in making complaints against petitioner No. 3, that too without permission and against the rules, was the foundation of the order of termination, and the order was punitive in nature. Admittedly, before passing the said order, no opportunity of hearing or to explain his case was afforded to the said respondent, therefore, same was violative to the provisions of Article 311 (2) of Constitution of india. The Tribunal recorded the said finding after considering the evidence on the record. The said finding is based on the relevant evidence on record and in our opinion, is not vitiated by any error of law and jurisdiction. It is a finding of fact. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the tribunal and cannot substitute its own finding in place thereof. ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, present petition has got no merits, the same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ( 14 ) WRIT petition falls and is dismissed but without any order as to costs.