1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 698 OF 2010 (Dnyangangecha Bhagirath Mahatma Phule Shikshan Sanstha & Anr. vs. Deepak Sadashivrao Ringne & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 22, 2010. Heard Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Kadu, learned counsel for respondent No.1. The only contention of the petitioners – management is, as the respondent was temporary employee, no notice for termination of his services is essential. Certain judgments are sought to be pressed into service for said purpose. Shri Kadu, learned counsel has pointed out that there is some dispute about the date of order of termination but then the order is per se stigmatic. I have perused the order. There are two orders, one is dated 15.04.1999 and other is dated 14.05.1999. Both the orders deal with seven instances as grounds for termination of services of respondent No. 1. Those instances are same. The orders also mention that after completion of disciplinary proceedings, the employee has been terminated. 2 Those seven instances are – not attending the school within time, reporting for duty under the influence of alcohol and patting head of elder girls and indulging in indecent behaviour with them, severe beating of students making complaints, remaining absent without permission. The other incidences are not remaining present on first date after vacation though it is necessary and remaining absent thereafter for about 28 days without permission, not obeying any orders of superiors and not submitting detailed explanation to charges levelled in earlier notices. The order is per se stigmatic. Before me, it is admitted that the management has not conducted any departmental enquiry. It is not the case of the management that enquiry was dispensed with. Before me it was argued that the appellate authority viz., Respondent No. 3 was approached almost after 11 years. Papers show that writ petition vide Writ Petition No. 298 of 2003 was filed before this Court and it was disposed of on 26.08.2009 by permitting employee to file appeal before competent authority within two weeks. Accordingly, appeal came to be filed. The appellate authority has set aside termination order for reasons recorded by it. However, it has not awarded any back wages. In these circumstances, it is apparent that an order casting stigma upon Respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed to stand in the absence of departmental enquiry. 3 The petitioners are, therefore, free to suspend said employee and to proceed against him departmentally in accordance with law. Shri Joshi, learned counsel has argued that in this period of 11 years, the other employees have joined the services and they were necessary parties to the proceedings. The challenge is not considered by the appellate authority. However, as the termination order of Respondent No. 1 is of the year 1999 and challenge thereto was pending before the Court, the recruitment of other employees by the management by itself is not sufficient to denying him the justice. With the liberty mentioned above, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.