Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. The Petitioner was employed in the Office of the Superintendent of Police on a temporary basis as a Sweeper, by an order dated 7-9-1977. At an earlier point of time his services came to be terminated Petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 1487/1983 challenging the termination. His contentions were upheld by this Court and the termination order was set aside by this Court by which the impugned orders' therein, Annexure-C and E filed in the said Writ Petition were quashed. He was given all the consequential benefits in regard to salary etc., The Court also directed that the Respondents shall have the liberty either to hold adisciplinary enquiry or to terminate the services of the Petitioner* W.P. No- 13207 of 1984 Dated 13th August 1984.in accordance with the rules, if in Jaw the Petitioner's services could he terminated on simple notice.
2. The Department came to accept the judgment. He was reinstated in service but soon suspended pending enquiry. No enquiry was held for a period of six months. The Petitioner was reinstated to do duty. Thereafter on 11-7-1984 thePetitioner was issued a notice intimating that his service was terminated as there was no need for his further work.
3. Aggrieved by that notice served on the Petitioner on 27-7-1984, he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief, inter alia, contending that the notice is not notice simpliciter terminating his service but oneessentially resorted to in order to punish the Petitioner for the allegedmisconduct for which no enquiry was held. Therefore, the prayer that the impugned notice must be quashed as being without the authority of law.
4. I do not think that this Court should accept that contention. Undoubtedly a temporary servant has no such right to continue in the service of the Government as a permanent servant. His services are liable to be terminated any time as he has not acquired a substantive lien on the post to which he is appointed. If a Government Servant temporary orpermanent is to be removed for misconduct then Article 311 of the Constitution extends to both alike. Merely because the State chooses to condone any act of misconduct of atemporary servant and terminate his services simpliciter, it will not be open to such a Government servant to claimpermanency in the post or a right to be punished for the misconduct unless the Government servant demonstrates that the notice of termination has been motivated by mala fides.
5. Sri Narayanaswamy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner clearly admits that the impugned order is not motivated by mala fides on the part of the Respondent-Superintendent of police, Hassan. The impugned notice itself clearly states that there is no need for a Sweeper any more and therefore the need for termination.
6. Mr. Narayanaswamy, however contended that this Court, in the circumstances of the case of the Petitionerhaving approached this Court earlier and even after disposal of the earlier Writ Petition, the fact of his suspension pending enquiry should all be taken together, and read into the order of termination, by which it would be possible to infer that a stigma attaches to the notice of termination. I think, this is far fetched logic, because the order itself does not mention anything about themisconduct on the part of the Petitioner, therefore even this argument must fail.
In the result, there is no cause for interfering with the impugned order. The Petition is accordingly rejected.