and others, reported in (1999} 3 SCC 60, Hoa'ble the Apex Coiut has consjdered the cases right from Pwstwttain Lctl Dfwigiu v. Umon oflitdia, AIR 1958 SC 36, Sfate of Oriasa u. Rain Warayati Das, AIR T.961 SC 177, Swnsfwr Sii^i v. State of Pwtjcib, (1974) 2 SCC 831, Gufarat Steet Tubea Ltd. u. Gajcu-cct Steel Tubea Mazdoor Safi/io, (1980) 2 SOC 593, Sfate ofPwyab v. Sukh Rcy BaIuuSur, AIR 1968 SC 1089 wul A.G. BetijeuMn v. Unioti ofltv3.id, (1967) 1 LLJ 718 (SC). It has beea held in Dipti Prctkasft Bwwrjee's case (supra) that fhc fmdlag arrwed at in an enquiry as to lulscouduct, behtud the back of the officer or wlfhout a regular depaitmeatal enquuy, the siiiipte order of termiiiation is to be treated as "foiiaded" on fhe sSlessa-twoa and •mll be bad. If however, enqzuiy was not held, no fincLuigs were ai'rived at and tbe employeT was not iucUned to conduct aa euquiry but,at fbe same time, he dM notwant to eontinue the employee agaiast whoia there were complaktts, It woiild be only a case of utotive and the order would not be bad. SiiBflar 1s ttte positiou if fhe einployer did not want to enquire into fhe truth of the aUegations because of delay ia iiegular departmeutal proceedings or he was doubtful about secunnj adequate evidence. Ifl such. a cirouuista.uce, ffae allegatioiis would be a luotiye aud not the foundation and the simple oider ofterinination would be valid.
