such misconduct is contemplated under Rule 14 and the procedure for imposing penalties are contemplated under Rule 15. Normally when the services of a temporary employee or a probationer or a contingency paid employee is brought to an end by passing an innocuous order due to unsatisfactory nature of service or on account of an act for which some action is taken but the termination is made in a simplicitor manner without conducting of inquiry or without casting any stigma on the employee, the provision of Rule 9 can be taken aid of and action undertaken. However, when the termination is founded on acts of commission or omission, which amounts to misconduct and when the found action for termination is such acts of misconduct then the termination amounts to casting stigma on the conduct, character and work of the employee concerned and when the termination has the effect of casting stigma on an employee concerned. the principle of natural justice, opportunity of hearing and inquiry are required to be conducted i.e. why if we go through the Rules of 1980, we find that apart from providing a provision for termination, simplictor provision is also contemplated for taking action in cases of misconduct committed by a temporary or contingency employee, accordingly, in this case if we analysis the facts as have come on record we find that the termination is founded on the act of commission and omission alleged against the petitioner, which form part of the show cause notice issued to him and in the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 28-092016, passed by the Disciplinary Authority namely the District Judge, we find that that it is a detailed order running to more than 4 paragraphs and the termination is founded and based on allegation or act of commission and omission said to have been conducted by the petitioner. The act of commission and omission conducted by the petitioner are indicated not only in the show cause notice but also in the impugned order of termination, which clearly shows that it is an act of willful insubordination, disobedience and an act unbecoming of an employee, which amounts to misconduct as contemplated under Rule 13 of Rules 1980 and if the action was to be taken for these reasons, we are of the considered view that the statutory provision contemplated under Rule 15 would have to be followed and as the action in this case is taken without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 15, it is a fit case where the petition should be allowed on this ground and the termination quashed.
