ORDER
M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 23.7.1979, 7.8.1979 and 15.7.1983 (Annexures-3, 4 and 7 to the writ petition).
3. The petitioner was a Collection Amin appointed on temporary basis and there were several allegations against him that he made realisation from different cultivators, but had not deposited the money in the Government Treasury and he had not issued receipts to the persons from whom the realisation had been made by him. He was charge sheeted on those charges and in enquiry he was given an adverse entry on 23.7.1979. Thereafter the impugned termination order was passed on 7.8.1979 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). Petitioner filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, which was dismissed by order dated 15.7.1983 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned termination order was punitive in nature as it was founded on the charges of misconduct for which he had already been awarded adverse entry on 7,8.1979. He has urged that the petitioner should have been given opportunity before passing the impugned order. There is no dispute that the petitioner was temporarily appointed in 1975 and his service was terminated on 7.8.1979. He was never confirmed. We do not agree that the termination is founded on the charges of misconduct. In fact the termination order has been passed on over all assessment of his work and this includes the allegations, which were mentioned in the charge sheet. It is well settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post.
5. In paragraphs 17 and 19 of the counter-affidavit it is denied that the impugned order dated 7.8.1979 was passed by way of punishment. The facts of the case are covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. A.P. Bajpai, 2003 (2) AWC 882 (SC) : (2003) 2 SCC 433 ; Shailaja Shtvajirao Patil v. President, JT 2002 (1) SC 431 ; Secretary, Ministry of Works and Housing, Government of India v. Shri Mohinder Singh Jagdev and Ors., JT 1996 (8) SC 46 ; M.P. Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Limited v. D.K. Jain, (1995) 1 SCC 638 ; Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State of U. P., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 524 ; State of U. P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991 (1) AWC 651 (SC) : (1991) 1 SCC 691 ; Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences, 2002 (1) AWC 42 (SC) : (2002) 1 SCC 520 and Mathew P. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation Limited, 2003 (2) AWC 1193, etc.
6. Following the said decisions,
we find no force in this petition and it
is dismissed.