Court No. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2314 of 2001 (Old No. 28150 of 2000). Digar Singh S/o Sri Harak Singh, R/o Village- Bhadriga, P.O. Raisopata, District- Pithoragarh. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Bisauna Khan, Pithoragarh. 2. District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh. 3. Joint Director of Education, Kumaon Region, Nainital. ………. Respondents. Sri C.D. Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. Date: 28th March, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 27.05.2000 and 05.06.2000 passed by respondent Nos. 3 & 1 respectively, by which the petitioner’s services were terminated. 2. The petitioner was issued appointment letter dated 15.07.1998 by the respondent No.3/Joint Director of Education, Kumaon Region, Nainital appointing him on Class-IV post on purely temporary basis till regular appointment is made on the said post. He joined on the said post on 17.07.1998 and since then he was discharging his duties in the said School. The petitioner was paid regular salary upto May 2000 and no regular appointment has made as yet. The respondent No. 3 issued a notice to the petitioner showing cause as to why his services be not terminated because the alleged appointment letter was never issued to him from the office of respondent No. 3 and he got so called temporary appointment by obtaining this fake and forged appointment letter. The petitioner submitted his reply against the aforesaid show cause notice to the respondent No.3 on 18.4.2000 denying the allegations made against him. Thereafter the respondent No.3 without making any inquiry or issuing any charge sheet passed an order on 27.5.2000 terminating the services of the petitioner. 3. In the counter affidavit the respondents contended that the record relating to appointment of the petitioner in the said School is not found and the appointment letter has never been issued from the office of Joint Director, Education, Kumaon Division, Nainital but the respondents nowhere denied the signature of the then Joint Director of Education, Kumaon Division, Nainital on the said appointment letter. 4. On perusal of record it reveals that the petitioner’s services were terminated without giving him charge sheet and holding a proper inquiry. It is settled law that the services of any Government employee could not have been terminated without giving him charge sheet and holding departmental inquiry properly. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. 5. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 28.03.2008 P.Singh