- (1.) .Prayer in this application filed on behalf of the petitioner is for quashing of the order of termination of the petitioners service issued under memo no. 1130 dated 26.7.2008 by the Joint Director, Medical and Health Service, Sail, Bokaro Steel Plant. Challenge to the impugned order of termination has been made on the ground that it is unconstitutional, arbitrary and mala fide and violative of the principles of natural justice. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Sri S.P.Roy learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, explains that the petitioner was working as a Class IV employee in the medical department of the Bokaro Steel Plant . By the impugned order, the petitioners services were terminated abruptly without giving him prior notice and without initiating any departmental proceedings against him. Learned counsel adds that though in the termination order, certain allegations have been made against the petitioner to suggest that he had indulged in acts of violence amounting to misconduct under the provisions of the work standing order, but no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to explain the allegation of charge and to establish his innocence. Learned counsel adds further that in the impugned order, the ground which has been taken by the respondents for terminating of petitioners service is that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner for offences under the IPC on the allegation that he had led a violent mob which indulged in riot and caused damage to the companys property. Learned counsel explains that the entire allegation is false and misleading inasmuch as at the time of occurrence the petitioner was attending his duty inside the work place and had no occasion to involve in the group or association of the violent mob. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would argue that the petitioners service was terminated in exercise of power under section 39 of work standing order, which empowered the authority to take administrative decision of terminating the services of an employee where such employee is found indulging in offencive activities, subversive to the interests of the company and its property. It appears from the counter affidavit that the essential facts stated in the writ petition that prior to termination of service , no notice to show cause was served on the petitioner and that no departmental proceeding was initiated on the basis of the charge against him, has not been denied or disputed in the counter affidavit. In this view of the matter, there can be no denial of the fact that the petitioner was dismissed straightway without affording him an opportunity of being heard. Thus, the manner in which service was terminated is apparently illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is therefore set aside. Nevertheless, the respondent company would be at liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioner in their discretion, but only after observing the procedure laid down under the law and adhering to the principles of natural justice. With the above observation, this application is disposed of. The order of termination having been quashed, the petitioner would be entitled for his reinstatement in service which the respondents shall consider and act accordingly.;