D.P. Mohapatra, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to quash the order dated 26. 4. 1979 by the District Judge, Puri terminating his services with effect from 1, 6. 1979 (Annexure:3 to the writ petition) and to declare him to be continuing in service.
The gist of the petitioner's case is that he was appointed as a temporary extra clerk in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh in July, 1969 and continued in the said post till August, 1969. When the employment was terminated due to want of copying the documents petitioner was issued a certificate to that effect. Thereafter, he applied to the Planning and Co-ordination Department on 24.8.1969 for re-employment and on the said application his name was recommended to the District Judge, Puri for appointment to a suitable post, The petitioner was then temporarily appointed as L.D.C., Clerk in the office of the District Judge, Puri by Order No. 188/1969 dated 18.11.1969 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition), It is the further case of the petitioner that all of a sudden, without any enquiry to his knowledge, the impugned order of termination was passed on 26th of April, 1979, terminating his services with effect from 1. 6. 1979. The petitioner asserts that a number of persons, about 56 in all, (vide Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition) who were appointed in the office subsequently still continue in service though his services were dispensed with without disclosing any reason.
2. The stand taken by opposite parties 1 and 2 in their counter is that since the petitioner held a temporary appointment he had no right to the post; the impugned order is one of termination simplicitor and does not visit the petitioner with any stigma. The opposite parties further state that after the petitioner was appointed in the office of the District Judge, Puri on the basis of the recommendation received from the Planning and' Co-ordination Department, on enquiry it was revealed that he had obtained a false retrenchment certificate in as much as he had served in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh for 17 days only and he was not a retrenched personnel as contemplated in the Planning and Co-ordination Circular No. 683-Estt. 11-26/67 p dated 5-2-1968.
3. From the facts narrated above it is manifest that after his service in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh was terminated, the petitioner was issued a certificate to that effect by the authorities concerned and thereafter, his name was recommended by the Planning and Co-ordination Department as a retrenched personnel to the District Judge, Puri, for appointment in his office. No material is forthcoming to show that the petitioner had any other involvement in obtaining the certificate or the recommendation from the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh or the Planning & Co-ordination Department excepting submitting applications for the purpose. Admittedly, no enquiry has been held and no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner by the appointing authority before passing the order of termination. Nothing is also indicated for what reason the certificate obtained by the petitioner from the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh, was held to be a false one. Since the petitioner had been appointed in the office of the District Judge, Puri on being recommended by the Planning & Co-ordination Department and having been found suitable for the post in question and he was continuing in the said post, if any defect in the appointment was found subsequently on the basis of which it was proposed to alter the position then prevailing, the minimum that the principles of natural justice and fairness required was that the allegation proposed to be utilised against him should have been brought to his notice and he should have been given an opportunity to submit his explanation, if any. This having not been done, the order is vitiated as being an arbitrary and capricious one.
4. In view of the discussion aforesaid the writ petition succeeds, the impugned order terminating the petitioner's service is quashed and the petitioner is deemed to be continuing in service. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order for costs.