Termination of a temporary employee without affording the opportunity of presenting the case before the disciplinary authority violates the protection guaranteed to temporary servants under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

1. By way of the present writ petition the Petitioner seeks a direction to quash the order no. 07-NRDC(361)/2004 dated 6th April, 2004 passed by the Respondent thereby terminating the service of the Petitioner and the order dated 1st December, 2006 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal dated 17th June, 2004.

2. The brief facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present writ petition are that:

(a) The Petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis on th May, 1996 as Data Entry Operator Grade-III in the Respondent-Corporation. The Respondent-Corporation further vide order dated 6th June, 2000 appointed the Petitioner on contractual basis for a period of three years with effect from 6th June, 2000. The Respondent-Corporation vide order dated 5th June, 2003 further extended the period of appointment of the Petitioner for one more year with effect from the 6th June, 2003.

(b) The Respondent-Corporation vide order dated 12th February, 2004 transferred the Petitioner to the Regional Office, Bangalore for two months or till the work was completed. The Petitioner joined the Regional Office, Bangalore on 11th March, 2004. However, since the weather conditions did not suit the Petitioner and he suffered from allergic bronchitis syndrome, the Petitioner

stvide representation dated 22nd March, 2004 and March, 2004 requested the Respondent-Corporation to call him back to the Head Office immediately. Further vide a representation dated 1st April, 2004 the Petitioner informed the Regional Manager, Bangalore about his going back to Delhi on the ground that the health of the Petitioner was deteriorating day by day.

(c) Thereafter, the Petitioner immediately upon coming back to Delhi informed the Head Office of the Respondent-

Corporation vide his representation dated 7th April, 2004 and annexed thereto a copy of his medical certificate dated 22nd March, 2004.

.(d) The Respondent-Corporation issued a office memorandum dated 22nd April, 2004 calling upon the Petitioner to explain in writing about the submission of a fake and forged mark sheet and certificate in respect of his graduation degree from Magadha University, Patna within a period of three days from the receipt thereof and asked the Petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against him under the rules of the Corporation governing his service conditions. The Respondent Corporation vide another office memorandum dated 26th May, 2004 extended time upto 31st May, 2004 to submit the explanation to the said office memorandum.

.(e) The Petitioner in response to the office memorandum dated 24th April, 2004 and 26th May, 2004 submitted his explanation and denied the allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent-Corporation abruptly vide order dated 4th June, 2004 terminated the service of the Petitioner.

.(f) The Petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 4th June, 2004 preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 4603 of 2005 praying for the following relief:

´(a) Quash the Order No. 07 NRDC (361)/2004 dated 4.6.2004 passed by the Respondent No.5 herein terminating the services of the petitioner.

.(b)Direct the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner with all the benefits of backwages and continuity of service.

.(c)And pass any other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper to meet the

.(g) The Respondent-Corporation filed counter affidavit in the said Civil Writ Petition No. 4603 of 2005 before this Court and made various allegations against the Petitioner and further stated that the termination order was passed because the Petitioner had intentionally violated the terms and conditions of the Respondent-Corporation with malafide intentions and thereby played fraud.

.(h) This Court vide order dated 4th October, 2006 directed the Respondent²Corporation to decide the appeal filed by the Petitioner within a period of three months and reserved liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Court again, if need so