1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5534/2007 Jitendra Kumar Kherwa v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 19 th May, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Harish Purohit ] Mr. Vinod Choudhary], for the petitioner. Mrs.R.R.Kanwar , for the respondents. .... By order dated 16.8.2007, passed by the Additional Director (Administration), Department of Medical & Health Services, the petitioner was terminated from service on being remained behind the bars from 27.6.2007 to 30.6.2007. To challenge the order aforesaid, this petition for writ is preferred. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that merely on the count of arrest he could have not been discontinued from service. Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on contract basis and as a consequent to his involvement in a criminal case relating to the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, his retention in service was not desirable. 2 By order dated 12.5.2008, this Court directed the respondents to make available the notings those culminated into the order terminating the petitioner's service contract. Same is shown to the Court today. From perusal of the notings, it appears that on 11.7.2007 an instruction was given by the Additional Director (Administration) not to permit the petitioner to join duties and further to allow him an opportunity of personal hearing. The personal hearing was given to the petitioner on 30.7.2007 and thereafter the order of termination was passed. The notings no where discloses any reason to discontinue the petitioner from service. Nothing reveals from reading of notings relating to the mode of personal hearing and how the stand of the petitioner was considered. The entire exercise to discontinue the petitioner from service appears to be made in quite mechanical manner. Mere arrest on lodging a criminal case and the allegations regarding involvement in a criminal case cannot be a reason to discontinue a person from service. An employer must reach at a conclusion that retention of the employee concerned in service is absolutely undesirable. For that adequate inquiry is necessary. In the instant matter no such exercise was made, thus, the order impugned is illegal. Same, 3 therefore, is quashed by accepting this petition for writ. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.