JUDGMENT
Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner was an employee of the West Bengal State Electricity Board. He was holding the post of ‘Peon’ in the pay scale of Rs. 280-390. He was appointed on 20th August, 1973 on an ad-hoc basis as Mazdoor on Muster Roll Establishment on a daily wage of Rs. 5.20 P. by the West Bengal State Electricity Board. The service of the petitioner was terminated on 27th January, 1983 on payment of 3 months’ wages in lieu of three months’ notice. The said termination has been challenged in this proceeding.
2. To appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out the said order of termination dated 27th January, 1983:
OFFICE ORDER No. 3 dt. 27th January, 1983.
In supersession of this Office Order No. Estb/Ad-hoc/Class-IV/13 dated 30th April, 1979, it is hereby ordered afresh that the services of Sri Abhijit Aich Roy S/o Ashutosh Aich Roy initially appointed as a Mazdoor on an Ad-hoc basis under this Office Order No. Estbt/Ad-hoc/Class-IV/ 424 dated 16th August 1973, are hereby terminated with immediate effect on payment of three months’ wages in lieu of three months’ notice.
3. The case of the petitioner is that on 30th April, 1979, the petitioner, along with others because of the Trade Union movement, was sought to be dismissed from service but ultimately, upon the representation, the said order was not acted upon and the petitioner remained in service. The case of the petitioner is that he was holding a substantive post of peon and accordingly his services could not have been terminated in the manner it was sought to be done.
4. The question that calls for determination is whether the petitioner, when his services were terminated, was a permanent employee of the West Bengal State Electricity Board. If’ not, whether the termination of the service of the petitioner was justified.
5. The petitioner admittedly was appointed by the West Bengal State Electricity Board on purely ad-hoc basis as Mazdoor on daily wages of Rs. 5.20 P. until further order. The terms and conditions of the said appointment are, inter alia, as follows:
(1) The appointment is purely temporary and is liable to termination without notice.
(2) During the period of such appointment he will be liable to be posted in any office under the Board in the State.
6. On 30th April, 1979 an order was made terminating the services of the petitioner and some other employees. The said order of termination was, however, not given effect to and the petitioner continued in service since his initial appointment in the year 1973.
7. By the order dated 4th September, 1982, the Secretary, West Bengal State Electricity Board, absorbed and integrated those employees who were recruited upto 30th April, 1974 and whose fitment order had not yet been issued under regular establishment, in temporary post of Khalasi/Peon/Durwan on the conditions contained in the said order.
8. The said absorption and integration had been made, inter alia, on the following terms and conditions:
This order of fitmen shall take effect from the date and hour the incumbents assume charge of the regular and cadre posts, but they will be eligible for the benefit of the regular pay scale and all other benefits as are admissible to temporary employees of the Board with retrospective effect from 1st September 1975. In case the regular posts in which the employees are being absorbed were created after 1st September 1975, supernumerary posts of Accounts Clerk/Lower Division Clerk for Class-Ill employees and supernumerary posts of Khalasi/Peon/Durwan/Duftry for Class-IV employees in the respective pay scale should be deemed to have been created for the period from 1st September 1975 till the date of creation of the regular posts and the employees should be treated to have been posted against the said berths during the corresponding period. The service rendered by them with effect from 1st September 1975 will be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of determining their seniority in the corresponding cadre posts in regular establishment.
The temporary appointment is liable to termination with one month’s notice from either side or on payment of one month’s pay in lieu thereof.
Confirmation of the employees will be regulated as per rules already in force
The said order further provided as follows:
The benefit of this order shall not be extended to those Ad-hoc employees-
(1) Against whom departmental proceedings have been drawn up,
(2) Police case pending,
(3) Where name and father’s name of employees do not tally with the intial appoinment order and
(4) Where photographs of employees differ.
In case an employee cannot be fitted in a particular post due to non-availability of berth within the jurisdiction of any Controlling Officer, the names of such employees should be forwarded to the undersigned within 30th November 1982 for taking further necessary action and they will be deemed to have been placed under supernumerary establishment till absorption under regular establishment.
9. The petitioner who was not absorbed made representation for his absorption in view of the said order dated 4th September, 1982. On 7th October, 1982, an order was passed by the Superintending Engineer, Calcutta (O & M) Circle to the following effect:
Consequent upon the necessity of issuance of fitment orders in respect of ad-hoc employees in line with Circular No. 1 dated 4th September 1982, of Secretary, W.B.S.E. Board communicated Vide Memo No. Estb/Ad-hoc/730/1(259) dated 4th September 1982, one post of peon under Supernumerary Establishment in the pay scale of Rs. 280-4-320-5-390 is hereby created for Calcutta (O & M) Circle Office for six months from the date of filling up the post.
This order takes immediate effect.
10. Thereafter, an Office Order No. 60 dated 7th October, 1982 was passed which requires to be mentioned in extenso:
OFFICE ORDER No. 60, Dated 7th October 1982.
Sri Abhijit Aich Roy, S/o Shri Ashutosh Aich Roy, Ad-hoc Class-IV, at present posted at the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Calcutta (O & M) Circle, WBSEB, Calcutta-1, initially appointed under Office Order No. Estb/Ad-hoc/Class-lV/424 dated 17th September 1973 of the Secretary, WBSEB, is hereby absorbed and integrated under regular establishment provisionally in temporary post of Peon in the scale of pay of Rs. 280-4-320-5-390 plus other allowances as admissible under normal rules of the Board, subject to the following conditions. The incumbent is posted at Calcutta (O & M) Circle office against a supernumerary berth created vide this Office Order No. 59 dated 7th October 1982.
1. This order of fitment shall take effect from the date & hour the incumbent assumes charge of the regular cadre post, but he will be eligible for the benefit of the regular pay scale and all other benefits as are admissible to temporary employees of the Board with retrospective effect from 1st September 1975 though initially the incumbent joined in Board’s service on ad-hoc establishment 20th August 1973 (F.N.).
2. The appointment is subject to the provisions of West Bengal State Electricity Board Employees’ Service Regulations.
3. The appointee is liable to transfer to any of the Office/Establishment/Plant of the Board situated throughout the State of West Bengal.
4. The temporary appointment is liable to termination with one month’s notice from either side or on payment of one month’s pay in lieu thereof.
11. In terms of the said Office Order No. 60 dated 7th October, 1982, the petitioner joined his duties as a peon on 7th October, 1982. It is evident from the said order that the petitioner although initially appointed on purely ad-hoc basis was not continuing as such when his services were terminated. Mr. Gooptu, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, has drawn my attention to the order dated 4th September, 1982 as referred to in the order dated 7th October, 1982 whereby the petitioner was “absorbed and integrated” under regular establishment in the temporary post of peon. The order dated 4th September, 1982 as well as the order dated 7th October, 1982 provided that the ad-hoc employees including the petitioner were absorbed and integrated under regular establishment subject to the condition that the temporary appointment is liable to termination with one month’s notice from either side or on payment of one month’s pay in lieu thereof. Mr. Gooptu, therefore, contends that since the petitioner is not a permanent employee his services could be terminated by the respondents after giving one month’s notice under Regulation 33, but in this case as a matter of grace, the petitioner was given 3 months’ notice and accordingly the petitioner cannot have any grievance. This anxiety of the learned Counsel of the respondents to label the petitioner as a temporary employee is obviously because of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh and Ors. reported in 1985 I LLJ 373. In that case, the Supreme Court held that Regulation 34 of the Board’s Regulations, on the face of it, is totally arbitrary and confers on the Board a power which is capable of vicious discrimination. Regulation 34 which was considered by the Supreme Court provided that the service of a permanent employee may be terminated by serving three months’ notice or on payment of salary for the corresponding period in lieu thereof. Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court striking down Regulation 34. Although the question whether the petitioner was a permanent or temporary employee may not have any bearing on the ultimate decision in the case, Rule 33(2) of the Regulations providing for termination of the service of a temporary employee by one month’s notice or on payment of a month’s salary in lieu thereof may, under certain circumstances, be held to be unreasonable and as such arbitrary. I shall advert to this question later.
12. The petitioner was admittedly appointed as a Mazdoor on 20th August, 1973 on ad-hoc basis. He was absorbed and integrated under the regular establishment by the order dated 7th October, 1982. The petitioner was continuing in service since 1973 till 27th January, 1983 for about 10 years when his services were terminated. Apart from the fact that the respondents have not disclosed before this Court the Office Order No. 3000 issued by the Board on 3rd November, 1979 regarding confirmation of employees, an employee cannot be thrown at the mercy of the employer, particularly in public employment, who has served for more than 10 years. In the Government service, an employee usually becomes quasi-permanent or permanent after putting in 3 years’ service. If a person is allowed to continue year after year and is not confirmed, that could not be the fault of the incumbent. The delay in integration and absorption in the regular establishment was due to the delay in taking a decision in this regard. The Order No. 3000 dated 3rd November, 1979 provides for automatic confirmation of the employees recruited upto 31st August, 1979 after completion of one year’s continuous service. The said office order, inter alia, provides as follows:
WEST BENGAL STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD
To : All Officers Office Order No. 3000
From : Secretary dated 3rd Nov. 1979.
Sub : Confirmation of employees on roll
in Board's service and future
recruitment policy.
Ref : Board Resolution No. 4 dt. 28th
June 1979 read with Resolution No. 2
dated 22nd September 1979.
The necesssity of bringing about an improvement in matters of conferring permanent status to employees completing five years service in the regular establishment and introducing a simplified procedure for expeditious disposal of cases therefor had been engaging attention of the Board from sometimes past. After careful consideration, the Board has been pleased to prescribe the following revised procedure, with immediate effect and until further orders, to regulate confirmation of employees on roll and future recruitment:
(i) Employees recruited upto 31st August 1979 and not placed under probation shall be treated to have been automatically confirmed in the regular service of the Board on completion of one year’s continuous service in the regular establishment.
13. In order to decide whether the petitioner was automatically confirmed in terms of the said order dated 3rd November, 1979, it is also necessary to consider the two subsequent office orders dated 4th September, 1982 and 7th October, 1982 regarding absorption and integration of the ad-hoc employees including the petitioner, the relevant extracts whereof have already been reproduced. The order dated 4th September, 1982 provides that the ad-hoc employees will be eligible for the benefit of the regular pay scale and all other benefits as are admissible to temporary employees of the Board with retrospective effect from 1st September, 1975. It has also been provided that in case the regular posts in which the employees were being absorbed had been created after 1st September, 1975, supernumerary posts, inter alia, of peon in the respective pay scale should be deemed to have been created for the period from 1st September, 1975 and the employees should be treated to have been posted against the said berths during the corresponding period. The services rendered by them with effect from 1st September, 1975 would be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of determining their seniority in the corresponding cadre post in regular establishment. (Emphasis supplied) Similarly, the order dated 7th October, 1982 absorbing and integrating the petitioner under regular establishment provides that the petitioner would be eligible for the regular pay scale and all other benefits as are admissible to temporary employees of the Board with retrospective effect from 1st September, 1975 though initially the incumbent joined in Board’s service on ad-hoc establishment (Emphasis supplied). The order dated 7th October, 1982 incorporates the terms and conditions mentioned in the order dated 4th September, 1982 regarding absorption and integration of all ad-hoc employees. It would, therefore, be evident that the petitioner and, for that matter, all other employees, were brought into regular cadre with retrospective effect from 1st September, 1975. The services rendered by them would be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of determining their seniority in the cadre posts in regular establishment. The petitioner must be deemed to have continued in regular cadre post since 1st September, 1975 for all purposes. The petitioner acquired the status of a confirmed employee upon his absorption and integration in the regular cadre in terms of the aforesaid orders. The respondents were fully aware of the said fact. This would be borne out from the order of termination itself. Under Regulation 33(2) the services of a temporary employee can be terminated giving one month’s notice or on payment of one month’s salary in lieu thereof. But under Regulation 34 the services of a permanent employee can be terminated upon giving three month’s notice or upon payment of salary for the corresponding period. Regulation 34 was declared to be invalid by the Division Bench of this Court. West Bengal State Electricity Board preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh and Ors. (supra) affirmed the judgment of the Division Bench. In the letter of termination, it is stated that the services of the petitioner are terminated with immediate effect on payment of three months’ wages in lieu of three months’ notice. It is not a question of giving a grace of two months as contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents. The respondents were alive to the fact that the petitioner was a confirmed employee and his services could not have been terminated without giving three months’ notice under Regulation 34. I am therefore unable to accept the contention of the respondents that the payment of three months’ wages in lieu of three months’ notice is an act of kindness on the part of the respondents and not because the petitioner was a permanent employee. It may also be mentioned that although the respondents have sought to contend that the petitioner is a temporary employee and he has no right to post, but the facts which have been stated by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit have not been controverted by the respondents. It is stated in the said affidavit that he was getting increment since 1975 and in every month his contributory provident fund at the rate of Rs. 40.25 and a sum of Rs. 6.75 towards Family Pension Scheme were deducted from his salary. It is further stated that he has always been allowed Earned Leave by the Board right from the year 1975 and he has taken 23 days Earned Leave out of 120 days Earned Leave which accrued to him from 1st of September, 1975 to 31st December, 1982. In my view, the petitioner who served from 1973 till 1983 for 10 years must be deemed to be in permanent employment, although his absorption was made on 7th October, 1982. A supernumerary post was created and the petitioner was absorbed. Therefore, there was permanent vacancy against which the petitioner was absorbed. If there was no permanent vacancy, there could not be any fresh recruitment in the post of peon.
14. Even assuming that the petitioner was temporary employee, the question is whether the service of the petitioner could be terminated in the manner in which it was done. An employee working in a statutory organisation for about ten years must have some security of service. The petitioner was not employed by private employer. In public employment, there must be security of service. The ‘hire and fire’ theory cannot apply to the public employment. The Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh and Ors. (supra) observed that time for banishing a naked ‘hire and fire’ rule from employer-employee relationship is fast approaching. Even if the petitioner is treated as temporary one after about ten years of service, his services cannot be terminated by invoking Regulation 33(2). Regulation 33(2), like Regulation 34 is arbitrary and confers power on the Board which is capable of vicious discrimination. This is exactly what has been done in this case. While the service of the petitioner is sought to be terminated after 10 years under Regulation 33(2), the juniors to him appointed much later are retained in service. There is no element of fairness or reasonableness in the exercise of power under Regulation 33(2). The Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh and Anr. v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D. and Ors. reported in 1986 I LLJ 403, observed that even a daily rated employee is entitled to be regularised after he has been in continuous employment for more than six months and he is entitled to same salary and allowances as are paid to regular permanent employees with effect from the date he was employed. The petitioner who was employed on ad-hoc basis in 1973 became a temporary employee from 1st September, 1975. On the facts of the case it cannot be said that he did not have any right to the post which he was holding.
15. Where the services of any ad-hoc employee or temporary employee were terminated on the ground that it is a termination simpliciter and when a challenge is made that order of termination is not an innocuous order a of termination simpliciter, the Court must be satisfied on the materials that there was no stigma or such termination was in substance and in fact not made by way of punishment. It is contended that the termination of the services of the petitioner has been made on the allegations of misconduct and stigma is attached. Reference has been made to certain news item published in various newspapers on 3rd and 4th February, 1983. It has been reported in the ‘Statesman’ of Thursday 3rd February, 1983 that the services of 12 employees of the West Bengal State Electricity Board were terminated on Tuesday because of their criminal antecedents. That statement was made by the Minister of State for Labour who was also looking after the Power portfolio, on 2nd February, 1983. It was also said by the Minister that criminal cases against the employees were pending since 1972. In another newspaper, ‘Jugantar’ of 3rd February, 1983 it has been mentioned that 12 persons were dismissed from service as there were adverse police reports against them. The Power Minister is reported to have said that the 12 employees dismissed were anti-socials, corrupt and murderers and accordingly they had been dismissed. Similar was the report published in ‘Satyajug’ of 4th February, 1983, ‘Ananda Bazar’of 3rd February and ‘Aajkal’ of 3rd February, 1983. It is true that the court may not take judicial notice of the statements made by the Minister or report in the newspapers, but those statements and reports which have been referred to in the petition have not been disputed by the respondents. In the writ petition, a point has been specifically taken that the termination of the service was motivated and was made by way of stigma. Admittedly the petitioner is one of those twelve employees whose services have been terminated allegedly on ground that they were connected with the illegal activities. The records have been produced. It appears from the records that the case of the petitioner was recommended by one M.L.A. belonging to the then ruling party. Appointment was given under the signature of the then Secretary of the Board, who is now the Chief Secretary. The following two letters are found in the records:
Secret
INTELLIGENCE BRANCH
13, Lord Sinha Road,
Calcutta, the 5th Nov., 1977.
No. 54317
6/75(PF) VR
To
The Assistant Secretary (C.S.)
West Bengal State Electricity Board,
48/1, Diamond Harbour Road,
Calcutta-27.
Sub: Verification of C/o of Shri Abhijit Aich Roy.
Ref: Your Memo No. Estb/Ad-hoc/1433 date 11th Dec. 1976
In returning herewith the V. Roll of the abovementioned subject, I am to inform you that Government consider the subject unsuitable for the proposed appointment.
Sd/
for Dy. Inspector General Police,
I.B., West Bengal.
SECRET
Government of West Bengal Home (Political) Department.
From : Shri A. Das Gupta
Deputy Secretary to the Government
of West Bengal
To : The Secy. West Bengal State
Electricity Board
48/1, Diamond Harbour Road,
Calcutta-27.
No. 1785-PS
Dated Calcutta, the 1st August, 1978.
Subject: Veritication of character and antecedents of Shri Abhijit Aich Roy, son of Sri Ashutosh of 10B, Nandan Road, Calcutta-25.
The undersigned is directed to refer to his Memo No. SEB/Estb/Ad-hoc/741 dated 6th/8th December, 1977 on the above subject and to say that the Government consider that the case of Shri Abhijit Aich Roy does not merit review.
2. The cases of other candidates in the list forwarded with his memo under reference are being examined and Government decision in respect of them will be communicated to W.B.S.E.B. in due course.
Sd/
Deputy Secretary to the Government
of West Bengal.
16. No other record is disclosed, nor the ground why the police report considered the petitioner unsuitable for appointment. After the said report, a letter of termination was issued on 30th April, 1979 but the letter of termination was not given effect to. On the contrary, by the order dated 7th October, 1982, the petitioner was absorbed and integrated under the regular establishment and a supernumerary berth was created for him. If the contention of the respondents is correct that there were various allegations against the petitioner for which he was not suitable person to be appointed, in that event he should have been given an opportunity of being heard, because the termination as claimed is not termination simpliciter but by way of punishment attaching stigma. Whatever has been stated in the verification roll is not in the file. It is not known what has been stated in the verification roll. The fact remains that even though the said information was in the file in 1978 and the service of the petitioner was terminated on 30th April, 1979 that termination was set aside and the petitioner was allowed to continue and ultimately he was absorbed in 1982 by the order dated 7th October, 1982 with retrospective effect from 1st September 1975. He was absorbed in the regular establishment and a supernumerary post was created for him. There was no further or new fact or material justifying the termination of the services of the petitioner. If the grounds which had been mentioned in the said police report are taken to be the grounds for termination in 1983, in that event they are related to the character of the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing before his services were terminated. Even in a case of an employee of a statutory organisation, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to observe the principles of natural justice.
17. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jamail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in 1986 II LLJ 268. In that case the appellants were appointed as Surveyors on ad-hoc basis. Their services could be dispensed with any time without any notice or reason. The Government of Punjab, in order to regulate the services of all the ad-hoc employees who had completed one year service, issued an order to the effect that the service of the ad-hoc employees would be regularised on certain conditions mentioned therein. The services of the appellants were however terminated. There, the Supreme Court was concerned with the question whether the impugned order of termination was an innocuous order of termination simplciter without attaching any stigma or it was in substance and in fact made by way of punishment. The Supreme Court found the impugned orders of termination of services of the appellants had been made on the ground that there was adverse remark in the service records of the appellants as well as there were serious allegations of embezzlement of funds against some of the appellants. The Supreme Court at p. 276 of 1986 II LLJ 268 held as follows:
In the instant case as we have stated already hereinbefore that though the impugned order was made under the camouflage or cloak of an order of termination simpliciter according to the terms of the employment, yet considering the attendant circumstances which are the basis of the said order of termination, there is no iota of doubt in inferring that the order of termination had been made by way of punishment on the ground of misconduct and adverse entry in service record without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners whose services are terminated and without complying with the mandatory procedure laid down in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
18. The position is now well-settled on a conspectus of the decisions referred to hereinbefore that the mere form of the order is not sufficient to hold that the order of termination was innocuous and the order of termination of the services of a probationer or of an ad-hoc appointee is a termination simpliciter in accordance with the terms of the appointment without attaching any stigma to the employee concerned. It is the substance of the order i.e. the attending circumstances as well as the basis of the order that have to be taken into consideration. In other words, when an allegation is made by the employee assailing the order of termination as one based on misconduct, though couched in innocuous terms, it is incumbent on the Court to lift the veil and to see the real circumstances as well as the basis and foundation of the order complained of. In other words, the Court, in such case, will lift the veil and will see whether the order was made on the ground of misconduct, inefficiency or not. In the instant case, we have already referred to as well as quoted the relevant portions of the averments made on behalf of the State respondent in their several affidavits alleging serious misconduct against the petitioners and also the adverse entries in the service records of these petitioners which were taken into consideration by the Departmental Selection Committee without giving them any opportunity of hearing and without following the procedure provided in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, while considering the fitness and suitability of the appellants for the purpose of regularising their services in accordance with the Government Circular made in October, 1980. Thus, the impugned orders terminating the services of the appellants on the ground that “the posts are no longer required” are made by way of punishment. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it must be held that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the basis of the police report containing adverse remarks against the petitioner and accordingly such order of termination without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard must be held to be invalid.
19. The other contention of the petitioner is that there has been hostile discrimination in this case. This contention has also substance. Assuming the petitioner was temporary employee and his services were terminated in accordance with the contract of employment, even then the respondents must satisfy why the petitioner should be singled out for such termination. It has been specially alleged in the supplementary affidavit by the petitioner that after the order of termination was made, more than 1000 posts of peons were filled up by the respondents. Accordingly it cannot be said that the petitioner’s services were terminated because he was a surplus or such termination was actuated by any economic measure. The termination of the service of the petitioner in fact is related to the question of his suitability having regard to the police report. Even otherwise, the respondents did not act fairly or reasonably in the matter of termination of the services of the petitioner. It was arbitrary. The Supreme Court in the case of Manager, Government Branch Press v. D.B. Belliappa reported in 1979 I LLJ 156 held that protection of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution will be available to a temporary Government servant if he has been arbitrarily discriminated against and singled out for harsh treatment in preference to his juniors similarly circumstanced. In that case, the service of Belliappa, a temporary Class-IV employee, was terminated without assigning any reason although in accordance with the conditions of his service, three other employees similarly situated, junior to Belliappa, in the said temporary cadre, were retained. The order of termination was held to be bad as it offended the equality clause in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
20. The Supreme Court considered the aforesaid judgment in Jarnail Singh’s case (supra). The Supreme Court held that the ad-hoc service of the appellants had been arbitrarily terminated. The reason was that although the services of the appellants were terminated as no longer required the authority had retained the other surveyors who were juniors to the, petitioners. The Supreme Court observed thus: at p. 277 of 1986 II LLJ 268:
In the instant case, ad-hoc services of the appellants have been arbitrarily terminated as no longer required while the respondents have retained other Surveyors who are juniors to the appellants. Therefore, on this ground also, the impugned order of termination of the services of the appellants are illegal and bad, being in contravention of the fundamental rights guranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
21. Admittedly after the petitioner had joined State Electricity Board, about 1000 persons were given employment and were working as peons. Thus, unless justification is shown why the petitioner’s services had been terminated although the persons employed after him were retained, such termination must be held to be arbitrary and cannot be sustained. The respondents have not given any justification for such termination excepting relying on the terms and conditions of appointment. If the services of the petitioner are sought to be terminated for his involvement in the trade union movement or for any misconduct, in that event the respondents ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If there was nothing against the petitioner, his services could not have been terminated while the others, appointed after the petitioner, were retained in service. This is a case where the services of the petitioner were arbitrarily terminated.
22. For the reasons aforesaid, this application succeeds. The Rule is made absolute. The order of termination dated 27th January, 1983 is set aside. Let appropriate writs be issued. The petitioner shall be allowed to resume his duties forthwith. He shall be entitled to all benefits including the monetary benefits. All arrears should be paid within a week from the date of communication of the signed copy of the operative part of the judgment. Stay asked for is refused.
All parties shall act on the signed copy of the minutes of this operative part of judgment on the undertaking of the Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner to apply for and obtain a certified copy of judgment and order made herein.