Aloke Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition was filed challenging the notice/order dated 26.2.1994/12.3.1994 at Annexure -3 to the writ petition contending that in reply to the earlier publication of notice in the newspaper dated 4.1.1994 petitioner sent his reply dated 17.1.1994 within the period granted and the copy of the said reply of the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition. The notice/order at Annexure -3 to the writ petition impugned herein cannot stand as it did not consider the said reply although it has not been disputed in the counter -affidavit. The respondents filed counter -affidavit and the petitioner filed rejoinder -affidavit.
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties it appears that the petitioner is having a pending dispute as regards his regularisation and the writ petition relating thereto is still pending. The relevant facts involved herein are that the petitioner obtained an interim order in his earlier writ petition relating to claim for regularisation and when the said interim order dated 8.10.1993 was served the respondents warned the petitioner and subsequently inspite of his presence on duty, the petitioner was shown absent on attendance register and show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner replied the same. A notice was thereafter published in the Newspaper Dainik Jagran dated 5.1.1994 stating that the petitioner was remaining absent from 1.6.1993 without any prior intimation or leave and notices sent to him were coming back unserved and the petitioner was being directed to attend the office with proper reply within 15 days of the said publication and in default his services would automatically stand terminated. It is the contention of the petitioner that he sent reply dated 17.1.1994 (Annexure -2 to the writ petition) and inspite of service of such notice without considering the said contention the impugned notice was published intimating automatic termination of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner gave a reply in respect of the earlier notice and such statement made in the writ petition has not been denied in the counter -affidavit but inspite of the aforesaid without considering the said contentions in the said reply the impugned order was passed. The further contention of the petitioner is that such termination of the petitioner on allegation without following the principles of natural justice cannot stand. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner was not a regular employee and as such the impugned order was valid and proper particularly when the petitioner was remaining absent from duty.
(3.) AS it appears that the impugned termination was on specific allegation against the petitioner, the order of automatic termination can stand the test of law itself being in violation of the principles of natural justice. Even the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered before effecting any termination. In respect of the said reply no allegation has been made in the counter -affidavit denying the existence of the said reply nor any material has been disclosed showing that the said reply was considered before passing the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot stand and the same is hereby quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.;