ORDER M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 9.4.1998.
3. The petitioner was admittedly a temporary employee. He used to come to the office after drinking liquor and he would create nuisance there. His service was terminated on 27.1.1998 on the ground that it was no longer required.
4. The appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court and hence this appeal.
5. The termination order was passed by the learned District Judge, Maharajganj. The appellant was a temporary employee and he should have behaved himself. Merely because the learned District Judge has taken into consideration the fact that the appellant comes to office after drinking liquor this would not make the order punitive in nature. In Union of India v. A.P. Bajpai, 2003 (2) AWC 882 (SC) : (2003) 2 SCC 433, the temporary employee was found sleeping during duty hours when he was posted at the Airport. He frequently went on leave and absented himself. Hence, his service was terminated. It was argued on his behalf that the order was punitive in nature and hence was illegal as no enquiry was held. The Supreme Court repelled this submission and held that the order was innocuous in nature.
6. In Mathew P. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation, 2003 (2) AWC 1193 (SC), the appellant was a probationer who had been warned to improve his work. Since he did not work properly he was given a show cause notice and thereafter his service was terminated. The Supreme Court held that the termination order was innocuous in nature.
7. In U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U. P. Public Service Tribunal, 2004 (1) AWC 335, a Division Bench of this Court has considered several decisions including the decision of the Supreme Court in Pavanendra Narain Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science, 2002 (1) AWC 42 (SC) : (2002) 1 SCC 520 ; Dhananjai v. Chief Executive Officer, 2003 (2) AWC 998 (SC) : (2003) 2 SCC 386 and Union of India v. A.P. Bajpai (supra), etc. and has held that even if there are some allegations against a temporary employee, that would not make the termination order punitive.
8. Following the aforesaid decision, we find no merit in this appeal. The appellant was only a temporary employee and hence, has no right to the post vide Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State of U. P., AIR 1992 SC 496. The appeal is dismissed.