( 1 ) THE writ petition has already been admitted on 28th February, 2000. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition challenges the termination order dated 24th November, 1997 passed by Adm Officer, CO i for Commander of Border Road Task Force, respondent no. 5.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case as averred in the writ petition as follows:- The petitioner was serving in Border Roads Task force (now known as `gref ) since 19th November, 1993. He was on probation initially for a period of two years and his probation was extended after taking into account his overall performance. Initially the period of probation was extended from 19th November, 1995 to 18th november, 1996. Thereafter the period of probation was again extended from 19th November, 1996 to 18th November, 1997. The petitioner was issued a Memorandum dated 24th october, 1993 where certain shortcomings/misconduct on his part were pointed out and the Commandant had came to a prima facie conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to retain in service.

( 4 ) THE memorandum dated 24th October, 1997 read as follows:- Keeping the above misconducts in view, the undersigned being the appointing authority arrived to the conclusion that the said GS-17507n L/hand (NT) Pradeep Kumar is not a fit person to retain in GREF service and to be removed from service during the extended period of probation period. GS-1750/5n L/hand (NT) Pradeep Kumar is hereby given an opportunity to submit his explanation in order to justify why he should not be removed from service during the extended probationary period. Your reply should reach the undersigned within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter. The petitioner submitted in his reply denying the charges made in the aforesaid application on 31st october, 1997. However, it appears that the respondents did not pursue the said memorandum and in fact resorted to a simple order of termination dated 18th November, 1997. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid termination on the ground that in spite of the termination being founded on the allegations for which the petitioner was issued memorandum on 24th October, 1997 and had submitted a reply on 31st October, 1997 his services were terminated by a seemingly innocuous order of termination dated 24th November, 1997. He submitted that no enquiry was conducted. The services of the petitioner was terminated and were obviously founded on the said allegations and thus stood vitiated as per the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Dipti prakash Banerjee Vs Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Others reported as (1999) 3 SCC 60. The relevant portion of the said judgment in dipti Banerjee s case (supra) reads as follows:- 21. If findings were arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as founded on the allegations and will be bad. But if the enquiry was not held, no findings were arrived at and the employer was not inclined to conduct an enquiry but, at the same time, he did not want to continue the employee against whom there were complaints, it would only be a case of motive and the order would not be bad. Similar is the position if the employer did not want to enquire into the truth of the allegations because of delay in regular departmental proceedings or he was doubtful about securing adequate evidence. In such a circumstance, the allegations would be a motive and not the foundation and the simple order of termination would be valid.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri U. Srivastava has relied upon the first part of the said paragraph to contend that the order of termination dated 24th November, 1997 was founded on the allegations and thus vitiated. However, the learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Gaurav