M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the U. P. Public Services tribunal dated 19. 9. 1985 vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was a bus-conductor in the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways, and he was on deputation to the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation after its creation. His service was terminated by the termination order dated 31. 7. 1972 vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. He challenged that order before the Tribunal which allowed his claim petition on the grounds firstly that the termination was founded on misconducted and no opportunity of hearing was given to him, secondly that the termination order was passed by an incompetent authority. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. A perusal of the impugned, termination order dated 31. 7. 1972 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) shows that it is an innocuous order of termination simpliciter. No stigma has been cast by the termination order. Merely because the order is preceded by some allegations of misconduct will not necessarily make it a punitive order, as held by the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in Dhananjay v. Chief Executive Officer, 2003 (2) AWC 998 (SC) : (2003) 2 SCC 386 ; Union of India v. A. P. Bajpai, 2003 (2) AWC 882 (SC) : (2003) 2 scc 433 and P. N. Verma v. S. G. P. C. I. , of Medical Sciences, 2002 (1) AWC 42 (SC) : (2002) 1 scc 520 etc. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid decisions it cannot be said that the impugned termination order was punitive. The petitioner was a temporary employee and there is nothing to show that he was ever confirmed. In fact even the Tribunals order proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner was a temporary employee. As regards the submission that the termination order was passed by an incompetent authority, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this submission. No doubt the petitioner was an employee of the U. P. Government and was on deputation to the corporation, but the authority which passed the order of termination was also a U. P. Government servant on deputation to the corporation. No doubt the petitioner was an employee of the U. P. Government and was on deputation to the corporation, but the authority which passed the order of termination was also a U. P. Government servant on deputation to the corporation. Thus, the service of the petitioner has been terminated by a U. P. Government employee and not by an officer of the Corporation as stated in paragraphs 16 and 24 of the writ petition. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons given above the petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed. .