Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was appointed as Tube-Well Operator in Division-!! vide order dated 20.1.1984 by the Executive Engineer as a temporary employee for a period of three years. The petitioner after joining the post continued in employment even after expiry of three years stipulated in the appointment order. While on duty he met with an accident and his right hand was badly injured. The petitioner filed a compensation case No. 9 of 1986 before the Labour Court which was allowed and a sum of Rs. 19,600/- was awarded as compensation. The case of the petitioner is that this annoyed the respondents authorities and vide order dated 11.3.1991 passed by the Executive Engineer, the services of the petitioner was terminated with effect from 1.5.1991.
(2.) It is contended that even though the petitioner was appointed temporarily in the year 1984 but was allowed to continue till 1991 and the impugned order has been passed levelling charges against him and casting an stigma. It has further been contended that no inquiry whatsoever was conducted into the alleged charges mentioned in the impugned order of termination which, as a matter of fact are the foundation of the termination order. It has next been contended that termination casting an stigma without holding an inquiry is bad in law and cannot be sustained and reliance in support of the contention has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Mehbub Alam Laskar, 2008 (116) FLR 896 (SC) . In reply, learned Standing Counsel has tried to justify the impugned order.
(3.) I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the case Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court finding that even though the order of termination was a speaking one and the petitioner was only a probationer but since in reply to his representation, the authorities informed him that in an inquiry conducted behind his back, he was found guilty of misappropriation of Government fund, held that since the charges against the petitioner found in the ex-parte inquiry was the foundation for terminating his services hence was bad in law.;