The petitioner was appointed as the Junior Engineer by the second respondent on probation as per the order dated 06.10.2005 and placed at the disposal of the third respondent. The third respondent in turn posted the petitioner to work under different Town Municipal Councils. Though she had worked for over a period of seven years, her probation was not declared. On the basis of the report of the third respondent, the second respondent has discharged the petitioner from service as per the order at Annexure-A dated 26.7.2012. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the said order in this writ petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the report submitted by the third respondent to the second respondent for discharge of the petitioner contains stigmatic statements. The second respondent without holding an enquiry has passed the order discharging the petitioner from service. The said order is not a discharge simplicitor. Therefore, the second respondent ought to have held enquiry.

3. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has supported the order at Annexure-A.

4. Perusal of the order at Annexure-A would clearly indicate that on the basis of the report of the third respondent, the second respondent has discharged the petitioner. The second respondent has referred to the report of the third respondent in the impugned order at Annexure-A at great length. Perusal of the said order would also clearly indicate that the third respondent has alleged charged of misappropriation, unauthorized absence and dereliction of duty against the petitioner. In my opinion, the said order is not a discharge simplicitor. It is violative of principles of natural justice and fair play.

5. This Court in N.H. Ningegowda Vs. Honble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore and Another, 1997 (1) KLJ 442 has held that in case of a temporary Government servant, his services can be discharged in accordance with clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Probation Rules or he can be terminated during the period of probation in accordance with Rule 6 of the Probation Rules without assigning any reasons. If the Appointing Authority finds that the probationer is unsuitable to continue in Government service on account of unsatisfactory record of service, it is necessary to hold a departmental enquiry before such termination.

6. In V.P. Ahuja vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2000 SC 1080 [LQ/SC/2000/467] , the Apex Court found that termination order has been passed on the ground that probationer had failed in the performance of his duties administratively and technically. It is held that such an order on the face of it is stigmatic and could cot have been passed without holding an enquiry and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the probationer.

7. In the instant case, the order at Annexure A is ex-facie stigmatic. Without holding an enquiry, termination of the petitioner is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order at Annexure A dated 26.7.2012 passed by the second respondent is hereby quashed. The second respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. It is made clear that since the petitioner has not worked from the date of the impugned order, she is not entitled for any backwages. However, liberty is reserved to the second respondent to take fresh action against the petitioner in accordance with law. No costs.