WP(C) 4651/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner, by the present petition has challenged the order of term ination terminating his service as Assistant Teacher, passed by the Director of Education, BTC basically on the ground that though the show-cause notice was iss ued, before passing the order of termination, no hearing was given. I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, M r. Goswami, the learned standing counsel Education Department appearing for the State respondents and Mr. D. Das, the learned standing counsel for the responden t BTC authority. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition i s taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. The contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though he was appointed initially as Stipendiary Teacher and thereafter his service was r egularized and he was paid in the in the regular scale of pay, on the basis of t he selection made by the competent authority, the Director of Education, BTC wit hout giving any opportunity for hearing has passed the impugned order dated 23.0 6.2009 terminating his service. It is the case of the petitioner that though he has submitted the reply to the show-cause notice issued, no hearing was given be fore passing the order of termination. The further case of the petitioner is tha t he has not been paid his salary for a certain period of time though he has bee n serving till he was terminated from service. Mr. Das, the learned standing counsel for the respondent BTC has submitt ed that the petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice issued submitted his sh ow-cause reply, but before passing the order of termination no hearing has been given to the petitioner. Mr. Das further submits that the BTC authority has deci ded to hear the petitioner personally, as such hearing is required to be given b efore passing of the order of termination. The case of the petitioner being that he was appointed pursuant to the s election made by the competent authority, his service could not be terminated wi thout giving the full opportunity to him to show-cause as to why his service sho uld not be terminated. The order of termination issued to the petitioner reveals that such termination has been issued on five grounds. Admittedly the show-caus e notice was issued to which the petitioner has submitted his reply. The order o f the Director of Education impugned in the present writ petition does not revea l consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the show-ca use notice issued. The said order also does not reveal giving any hearing to the petitioner before passing such order. In view of the aforesaid position, the order of termination is set aside . The petitioner is deem to be in service with effect from the date of terminati on. The petitioner shall be paid his salary to which he is entitled to within a period of 3(three) months from today, provided he was serving till the date of h is termination. Since the order of termination has been set aside on the ground of not hearing the petitioner, though he has submitted his reply to the show-cau se notice issued, the Director of Education, BTC is directed to hear the petitio ner, for which the petitioner shall appear before the said authority on 04.12.20 09. The Director of Education thereafter upon hearing and upon consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner as well as keeping in view the materials a vailable on record shall pass necessary order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent as indicated abov e. No cost.