JUDGMENT Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.8.1992 passed by Regional Employment Officer. Meerut whereby his services have been terminated under U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, after making him entitled to one month's pay and the order dated 6.6.1992 by which an adverse entry was awarded to him in the year 1991-92.
2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, and learned standing counsel.
3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. He was appointed as a Peon after interview on temporary basis in the City Employment Exchange, Ghaziabad. He was transferred to several places and that during relevant time, he was posted in the office of City Employment Exchange Officer. Hapur district Ghaziabad. A charge-sheet dated 5.8.1991 was given to him for unauthorised absence on several occasions for long periods, late arrival on duty, negligence of work on duty, failure to carry out the orders, doubtful integrity, directly sending the representation to higher officers and ministers, wrongful claim of House Rent Allowance, etc. The petitioner submitted his reply on 19.8.1991. No inquiry was conducted and that it is alleged by the petitioner that the inquiry was dropped. The petitioner was thereafter awarded adverse entry for the year 1991-92 by order dated 6.6.1992 to the effect that he leaves Headquarter without seeking permission of the competent authority and is a habitual absentee, his integrity is not beyond doubt and that he has given several wrong statements about the office to the newspapers and thus he is an employee who does not maintain discipline. The petitioner submitted his representation on 28.7.1992. It is alleged by the petitioner in para 13 of the writ petition that in response to a letter from the Director of Employment Exchange. U. P. Lucknow to City Employment Exchange Officer, Hapur, recommending the petitioner's name for confirmation by his letter dated 3.8.1992, and that as such the termination of services by order dated 24.8.1992 under Rule of 1975 is arbitrary, mala fide and Illegal.
4. A counter-affidavit of Sri R.L. Singh, Assistant Employment Exchange Officer, Ghaziabad, has been filed stating that the petitioner was a temporary employee. His work was never satisfactory. There were always complaints against him and he was guilty of dereliction in duty for which he was given several warnings. The impugned order does not cause any stigma upon him. The petitioner was awarded adverse entry in 1988-89 and thereafter in 1991-92. A supplementary counter-affidavit of the same officer has been filed in which he has stated that prior to August, 1991 at several times, explanations were called from the petitioner regarding his illegal activities, dereliction of duties, carelessness towards Government work and that several warnings were also given to him. He was awarded adverse entry in the year 1988-89 and 1990-91. With regard to letter of recommending confirmation, it has been stated that the Director Training and Employment, U. P. vide his letter dated 31.7.1992 sought information in prescribed proforma regarding the quota for promotion on the post of class-Ill so that the same may be considered in proposed meeting going to be held in the Directorate on 26.8.1992. The said Employment Officer sent a letter dated 11.8.1992 submitting information regarding the employees and that a letter dated 18.8.1992 was again sent giving the said information. He had never recommended confirmation or regularisation of class-IV employees. The copies of the aforesaid letters have been annexed to the supplementary affidavit.
5. Ordinarily, long period of employment on temporary basis entitles the employee to confirmation of service, but I find that in the present case, the petitioner's work and conduct was not satisfactory from the beginning. He was of habitual absentee from work and used to remain on unauthorised leave for long periods. The charge-sheet given to the petitioner relates to the periods from 1976 to 1991. Explanation was called for from him on about 22 occasions between 1976 and 1991. Warnings were given to him for late arrival on duty on 1.3.1985, 13.3.1985, 6.3.1985. 23.3.1985, 4.1.1991 and for negligence on duty on 10.10.1990 and 4.6.1991. He was found to have disobeyed the orders of the officers for which warnings were given to him on 2.7.1983, 11.4.1989, 2.11.1989 and 10.10.1990. He was found to have made direct representations to Senior Officers, Ministers and Members of Legislative Assembly and also publishing his statement in newspapers on 18.7.1991. He also sent a representation through his wife on 2.4.1990. On two occasions, namely, in May, 1991 and August, 1991, the Regional Employment Officer, Meerut, made a note on his record regarding doubtful integrity. The enquiry proposed against him was dropped by giving him adverse entry dated 6.6.1992. In his representation against the adverse entry, the petitioner admitted that he has been absent on several occasions but pleaded that these absence were on account of urgent family work. Regarding publication of his statement in newspaper Wan Satta' on 18.7.1991, he pleaded that his name has only been published as a witness and that he has not given any statement. On the doubt upon his integrity, he submitted that there is no allegation against him. whereas I find that a warning was given to him on 30.3.1989, for unauthorisedly taking out employment cards from the cabinet whereas his duties did not authorise him to deal with those cards.
6. A temporary employee has no right to the post. If his work and conduct is not found satisfactory, his services may be terminated in terms of his employment order under U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. If the termination order is founded on some charge. It will amount to punishment and will require an opportunity to be given to the delinquent employee. However, if no specific charge or charges, or any particular conduct is the foundation, but a motive for dispensing with the service, the order does not amount to punishment.
7. In Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U. P., 2000 (3) AWC 1848 (SC) : (2000) 5 SCC 152. the Supreme Court after having considered the entire case law on the subject relating to termination of temporary Government servant or probationer, beginning from Purshottam Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36, upto Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U. P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd.. 1998 (4) AWC 201 (SC) ; (1999) 2 SCC 21, has enumerated the principle to test the termination order in holding whether it is punitive or is non-injurious termination simpliciter. It has been held that the Important principles which are divestible on the concept of motive and foundation concerning a probationer. A probationer had no right to hold the post and his services can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the period of probationer on account of general unsuitabflity with the post in question. If for the determination of suitability of probationer for the post in question, or for his further retention in service or for confirmation, an inquiry is held and it is on the basis of that inquiry the decision is taken to terminate his services, the order will not be punitive in nature but when there are allegations of misconduct, and an Inquiry is held to find out the truth of that misconduct and an order terminating the services is passed on the basis of that Inquiry, the order would be punitive in nature as the inquiry was held not for assessing the general suitability of the employee for the post in question, but to find out the truth of allegation of misconduct against the employee. In this situation, the order would be founded on misconduct and it will not be a mere matter of motive.
8. The motive is the intention or moving power which calls for action for a definite result. It can also be called a stimulous for action. It is a factor which impells the employer to take an action. If it is factor of general suitability of employee, the action is to be upheld. If, however, there are allegations of misconduct and an Inquiry is held behind his back to ascertain the truth and consequently, the services are terminated, the order is founded on the allegation of misconduct and will be punitive in nature.
9. Applying the aforesaid test, I find that in the present case, the motive of termination of petitioner's service was general unsuitabiliiy. His work and conduct was not found satisfactory from the beginning. The habit of remaining absent without leave, carelessness towards the work, disobedience of the orders of the superior officers resulted in several warnings to the petitioner. All this impelled the appointing authority to give a charge-sheet and after considering the reply, an adverse entry was recorded. The cumulative effect of general unsultabillty and adverse entries was the ultimate motive to impell the appointing authority to terminate the petitioner's service. In the circumstances, the termination order cannot be held to be punitive.
10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.