Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) Briefly the case of the petitioner is that he joined the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) as a Lower Division Clerk on Sept. 11, 1970, on temporary basis. After his joining the Department, the Board made enquiry regarding his character and antecedents. It is alleged that the District Magistrate Hissar made a wrang report regarding his character and antecedents and said in the report that he was a habitual thief. In view of the report of the District Magistrate, the Board terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated June 28, 1971 stating that his services were being terminated as he had been declared unfit for Government service as per report of the District Magistrate, Hissar. He has challenged the order dated June 28, 1971, inter alia, on the ground that the order is stigmatic and amounts to his dismissal from service. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents who have pleaded that the petitioner was a temporary employee of the Board and, therefore, his services could be terminated at any time, and that the impugned order is a valid one.
(2.) It is contended by Mr. Premi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the order passed by the Board is a stigmatic order and that could not be passed unless a reasonable opportunity had been given to the petitioner to show-cause against the said order.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and find force in the contention of Mr. Premi. The Board has framed Regulations regarding employee, known as the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). Regulation 7 of the Regulations deals with the nature of penalties. It has provided various penalties, inter alia removal and dismissal from service 'see Clauses vi and vii). Regulation 9 of the Regulations deals with procedure for imposing major penalties. Clause (i) say that no order imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (vii) of Regulation 7 shall be passed, except after an enquiry, held as far as may be, in the manner hereinafter provided. The subsequent clauses provided for giving charges and to give an opportunity to the delinquent. It cannot e disputed from a reading of the order that it is a stigmatic one, and therefore, it amounts to an order of dismissal from service, as it is said in the order that the petitioner is unfit for Government service as per the report of the District Magistrate, Hissar. In the circumstances, it was incumbent for the Board to follow the procedure as provided in Regulation 9 of the Regulations before passing the impugned order. It has no been well settled that the Regulations framed by the statutory bodies have got the force of law (see Sukhdev Singh and others Vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raguvanshi and another, A. I. R 1975 S C. 1331 . The learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently contended that order is not a stigmatic one. I regret my inability to accept this contention.;