- (1.) Since the pleadings in this case are complete, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this application is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in this application has challenged the impugned order dated 6.12.2007 (annexure 5) issued by the respondent no. 3 whereby petitioners service was terminated due to "unavoidable reasons . Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that in pursuance of the advertisement for appointment of constable, the petitioner applied and after having faced the requisite test, he was finally selected, though initially an objection was made on medical ground, but on being confronted with the medical certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon who had examined the petitioner and pursuant to the order of the appellate authority, the respondents had acknowledged the fact that the petitioner was eligible and had accordingly issued letter of his appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted his joining which was accepted by the respondents and he continued to discharge his duties for more than one and half years. It was thereafter that the immediate superior authority of the petitioner subjected the petitioner to medical test and subsequently by the impugned order, he was communicated termination of his service by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that such an abrupt decision of termination of service of the petitioner without any notice to the petitioner, or without giving an opportunity of hearing against the proposed termination is totally against the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained in law. Sri Faizur Rahman, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that though the petitioner was given the letter of appointment, but that was provisional. The petitioner was sent for medical examination and was found unfit since he was over weight and more than what was maximum permissible and therefore the decision to terminate him from service was taken. As appears from the statement made in the counter affidavit , admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a constable in the CRPF and was allowed to continue in service for more than 1 1/2 years. It is also apparent that before taking the decision of termination of the service of the petitioner, he was not informed of the reasons of such decision by way of prior notice to him, nor an opportunity of hearing was given to him against the proposed termination of his service This is apparently against the principles of natural justice and equity and cannot be sustained in law. In view of the above facts and circumnutates, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order ( annexure 5) is hereby quashed. The respondents shall reinstate the petitioner in service with immediate effect. However, the respondents shall be at liberty take appropriate action afresh against the petitioner, but only after affording him an opportunity of hearing. With the above observation, this application is disposed of . Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.;