( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anjani Kumar for the respondents. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Jawahar Bhawan lucknow, dated 30. 7. 1993, the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, has filed this writ petition. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition preferred by the respondents, challenging the order of termination from service, dated 1. 9. 1975 on the ground that the said order is punitive in nature. ( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 was appointed as Chaukidar on temporary basis on 29. 6. 1969, and was terminated from service by order of simpliciter discharge on 1. 9. 1975. Challenging the aforesaid order, it was pleaded by him before the Tribunal that since he was reported to be involved in a theft case, his services have been terminated without holding any enquiry and since the impugned order is based on the specific case of misconduct, the same deserves to be set aside, the same having been passed without affording any opportunity to him. ( 4 ) THE petitioners filed the written statement and disputed that the report of theft was the foundation of the termination order, but factually the services of the respondent No. 1, were not found upto the mark and therefore, his services were terminated. It was also alleged that he was awarded an adverse entry for the year 1975, and though, it was admitted that the theft was reported by the Senior Foreman, but it was not deemed necessary to make any enquiry. ( 5 ) THE date of termination order is 1. 9. 1975 and the report of the Senior Foreman regarding theft is dated 9. 9. 1975, i. e. after passing of the termination order. In view of the aforesaid dates, the tribunal erred in law in holding that the report of the Senior Foreman, Haldwani, regarding theft was the basis for termination of the service of the respondent No. 1. 9. 1975 and the report of the Senior Foreman regarding theft is dated 9. 9. 1975, i. e. after passing of the termination order. In view of the aforesaid dates, the tribunal erred in law in holding that the report of the Senior Foreman, Haldwani, regarding theft was the basis for termination of the service of the respondent No. 1. ( 6 ) EVEN otherwise, it was always the discretion of the appointing authority, either to hold enquiry in the case of temporary Government servant before dispensing with his services, or to terminate the services by simpliciter discharge, but when such an order is passed, the Court has to see as to whether the alleged misconduct is the foundation of the termination order, or it is the motive for terminating the services. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances that no enquiry was sought to be initiated against the alleged report of theft, nor the respondent No. 1 was punished for indulging in theft and that the termination order has been passed even before submission of the report, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable. The order of simpliciter discharge under the circumstances, could not be said to be punitive. ( 8 ) WE, therefore, hold that the order passed by the Tribunal, cannot be sustained and thus, is hereby quashed. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. . .