An order of termination of employment based on loss of confidence must be supported by cogent evidence and must not be arbitrary or capricious.

1. - This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the Judgment dated August 19, 1982 of the learned single Judge of this Court by which he allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent without any order as to costs.

2. The appellants and respondent were non-petitioner and petitioner before the learned single Judge and they will be referred is such herein.

3. The petitioner was holding the post of Junior Accountant with non petitioner No. 1, the Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. (herein after referred to as the Federation) in its Jodhpur Dairy Unit. By order (Anx. 2) dated June 3, 1981 the petitioner's services were, terminated with immediate affect and he was asked to hand over charge to one Shri Om Dutt. It is alleged that this order came to the notice of the petitioner on June 6, 1981. The order (Anx 2) (typed copy Anx. 3) filed by the petitioner runs as follows:

"Since you are holding a responsible post and you are directly assisting the Accounts Officer Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Unit, Jodhpur Dairy. As you are very well aware that the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation is directly dealing in sale and distribution of milk with the public.

As you are aware that few days back a confidential audit report was leaked out and it was published in the Rajasthan Patrika dated in 19.5.1981 which adversely effected the prestige, the goodwill and adversely effect the efficiency of the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation in the eyes of public.

Today on 3rd June, 1981, Shri H.K. Gupta Accounts Officer after holding the preliminary enquiry, he reported to me that you with Sarva Shri Prabhu Singh and Bhanwar Dan took away the note sheet and other vouchers relating to freight and cartege. I have perused the preliminary enquiry report and I agrees with the said report.

I have lost the confidence in you and now it is not possible to hold the departmental enquiry on the facts given above. Tnereafter, I dispense with departmental enquiry to be conducted on the facts given above against you.

It is not possible for ms to retain you in the service of the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Unit Jodhpur Dairy even for a day. Therefore, your services are terminated with immediate effect. You are, hereby, asked to handover your charge to San Om Datt Purohit and you can collect your dues after submitting the no dues certificate.
Sd/-General Manager.The petitioner has also filed the photostat copy of the office note (Anx.4) dated June 3,1981 of the Special Auditor to show that what is stated in the order so far as the happening during the course of preliminary enquiry is concerned is wrong. The petitioner claims himself to be a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Industrial Employment (Sending Orders) Act 1946(No. XX of 1946) (hereinafter referred to be the Act,) as the duties which he is discharging are clerical in nature. The order (Anx. 2) was, challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition on various grounds on June 8, 1981 praying therein that the order (Anx. 2) dated June 3, 1981 may be declared illegal and may be quashed and the appellants (who Were non-petitioners) may be directed not to give effect to it, Certain other consequential reliefs were also sought in the writ petition. A reply contesting the writ petition was filed on behalf of the non-petitioners. Alongwith the reply, documents Ex. R 1 to Ex. Rule 8 were filed. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply alongwith documents Anx-5 to Anx. 7. The learned' single Judge has recorded the following findings:

(1) that appellant No. 1 (the Federation) is the authority under the control of the Government and so it is 'the State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution;

(2) that alternative remedy by moving the Government for redress under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947) is no bar to the maintainability of the writ petition;

(3) that the