THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 862 OF 2008 O R D E R: The respondents issued a Notiﬁcation, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman, on contractual basis. The petitioner submitted his explanation, and ultimately, he was selected through an order, dated 13.07.2007. He joined duty on 16.7.2007. The respondents terminated the service of the petitioner, vide memo dated 18.1.2008, on the ground that the ITI certiﬁcate, produced by the petitioner, was found to be not genuine. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the respondents did not issue any notice to him, before passing the order of termination, and that the impugned proceedings are violative of principles of natural justice. The respondents ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit, opposing the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the order of appointment itself is on contractual basis, and a condition was stipulated clearly, to the eﬀect that the appointment is subject to veriﬁcation of the certiﬁcates. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. On ﬁnding that the petitioner fulﬁlled the eligibility criteria, the 2nd respondent appointed the petitioner as Junior Lineman, on contractual basis, vide orders dated 13.7.2007. Nearly after ﬁve months, from the date of joining the duty, the 2 nd respondent passed the impugned order, straight away, terminating the contract of appointment. It is no doubt true that the appointment is contractual in nature, and there is a stipulation, to the eﬀect that it is subject to veriﬁcation of the certiﬁcates. However, when a stigma is attached to the petitioner, alleging that he produced fake certiﬁcate of qualiﬁcation, it was fundamental on the part of the 2nd respondent, to have issued notice to the petitioner. The impugned order has the eﬀect of attaching stigma to the petitioner, without hearing him. It is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice. On this short ground, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, directed that it shall be open to the 2nd respondent, to issue notice to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders, after reinstating the petitioner into service. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 5th August 2008 PAN