Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

It is urged by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since an inquiry was held, no penalty could be imposed upon the Petitioner without supplying to him the report of the Inquiry Officer and giving an opportunity to rebut the same.

2. Vide impugned order dated September 4, 2008 O.A. No. 1687/2007 filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed.

3. The Petitioner was a casual labourer and having worked for more than 240 days, was accorded the status of Casual Labourer 'Temporary Employee' as per a scheme dated September 10, 1993. The said scheme dated September 10, 1993 clearly stipulated that the confirmant temporary status would not mean that the causal labourers have to be treated on the permanent establishment. It simply said that temporary status would entitle the casual labourers to certain benefits. Clause 7 of the circular clearly stated that despite confirmant of temporary status, the services of the casual labourers may be dispensed with by giving a notice of one month in writing.

4. At a vigilance raid conducted, it got detected that the Petitioner and his Junior Engineer were indulging in objectionable activity of letting out vacant Government pr