Per Pramath Patnaik, J.

In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of termination letter dated 09.02.2010 issued by the Manager, United Bank of India, Ojhadih Branch, Dhanbad and also for quashing of order dated 5.10.2010 issued by the appellate authority-Executive Director of the respondents-Bank and further for reinstatement of the petitioner in services.

2. The facts, as emanated from the averments of the writ application, in a nutshell is that on 11.08.1994 a letter was issued to the petitioner appointing him as a part time sweeper at Ojhadih Branch with effect from 01.05.1987. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties to the best satisfaction of the authorities. But, all on a sudden on 9.02.2010, the Manager, Ojhadih Branch of the said Bank informed the petitioner that his services has been terminated vide order dated 03.02.2010 by Chief Regional Manager, Regional Office, Ranchi. Upon such information, the petitioner submitted his representation to the higher authorities of the said bank seeking reason of his dismissal from services. It has been submitted that upon receipt of such representation, the Manager, Ojhadih Branch wrote a letter to the Chief Regional Manager, Jharkhand for consideration of the representation of the petitioner. But, when no action was taken by the respondents-authorities, the petitioner filed an application under R.T.I Act seeking reasons of his dismissal. Thereupon, the Regional Public Information Officer-cum-Chief Regional Manager, Jharkhand furnished the information sought for by the petitioner stating that during the C.B.I enquiry, it has come to notice that the petitioner has taken money from the United Kisan Credit borrower (herein after referred to as 'UKC borrower'). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.10.2010.

3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of termination issued vide letter dated 09.02.2010 and appellate order dated 05.10.2010, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

4. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been submitted in the counter affidavit that petitioner was appointed as part time sweeper in respondent bank and in the letter dated 11.08.1994 itself, it has categorically been stated that services of the petitioner is temporary in nature and the petitioner may be terminated from services at any time with or without notice or without assigning any reason whatsoever. It has further been submitted that though the petitioner was working as a sweeper but on raid of C.B.I, they laid specific charges on him for taking money from UKC borrower and hence, vide letter dated 09.02.2010, the petitioner was informed by the respondent-bank about his termination from the services. As such, the respondent-bank was not in a position to continue the petitioner in services, which was entirely on temporary basis.

5. Heard Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-bank.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned order of termination dated 09.02.2010 has been passed without notice and without affording any opportunity of being heard, which is in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submitted that the termination order dated 09.02.2010, which has been issued by Manager of the said bank is not competent authority to terminate the services of the petitioner, hence, the impugned order of termination is bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order of termination from services being stigmatic order violates Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

7. In support of his argument, on the issue of violation of principl