Full Judgment
Rajesh Balia, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant has filed the appeal aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge holding the termination order of the respondents to be stigmatic in character, and having passed without holding an enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the respondents, the order of termination is bad.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the service of the respondent has been terminated as per the term of his employment and therefore, he cannot make any grievance out of it. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that once respondent has been employed and his termination of service takes place which stigmatic in character and not an order of termination simplicitor. Respondent is a statutory body and instrumentality of the State. As such it was bound to act in accordance with the principle of natural justice which is ingrained in the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which is antithesis of arbitrariness in all State action and guaranties a fair treatment to all whether in the matter of dealing with substantive provision or procedural aspects, even if Article 311 is not applicable to the respondent board.
The condition No.6 on which the appellants rely reads as under:
The controlling officer will obtain police antecedent report from the Superintendent of Police of the District of his home town in the prescribed format and in case of any adverse remarks, the services of such person shall be deemed to have been terminated with immediate effect, for which no compensation shall be paid to him.
It is apparent from the perusal of the aforesaid condition that the envisaged termination is linked with the report from the Superintendent which is considered by the employer to be adverse containing adverse remarks to the petitioner. A clear causal connection between the formation of opinion about adverse remarks and termination of service is established under the terms of agreement. The aforesaid term and condition does not dispense with the necessity of holding enquiry before formation of this causal link for giving effect to the condition No. 6 by terminating the services of an employee without payment of compensation. Clause 6 only dispenses with payment of compensation, but does not dispense with holding an enquiry before terminating service of the incumbent by holding that report about his antecedent as adverse to him which is stigmatic in character.
4. In this view of the matter, we are in agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that at least the back wages ought not to be allowed because the petitioner has not worked during the period he was out of employment and not worked for the appellant. This prayer fails to impress us. Termination of respondent's service was a voluntary act of the appellant. It is an order made in breach of principle of natural justice and void ab initio. The respondent has been kept out of working by the appellants due to their own act. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge who allowed 50% of the back wages only.
6. Appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.