JUDGMENT : A. CHAKRABARTI, J. 1. This writ petition was filed for quashing the orders dated 26.10.1987 and 5.2.1988 at Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition and for directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The case of the Petitioner, as made out, in the writ petition, is that he was selected by a selection committee and his name was included in the waiting list of Conductor in the panel formed in the year 1980. The appointment was given to the Petitioner in year 1985. The Petitioner discharged his duties thereafter regularly and by order dated 3.10.1987, the name of the Petitioner was removed from the waiting list without affording any opportunity to defend himself. The Petitioner was not given any duty in pursuance of the said order. The Petitioner claimed his right to continue in the post upon reinstatement as he has already discharged his duties for two hundred forty days and before passing the impugned order, there was no hearing to the Petitioner although Rule 26 of the relevant regulations provided for such opportunity. The appeal filed by the Petitioner was also rejected by order dated 5.2.1988. Both the orders suffer from irregularity as being not reasoned orders. 3. The Respondents contested the proceeding and filed counter-affidavit disclosing the relevant facts. The Petitioner filed his rejoinder-affidavit. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and they agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage as affidavits have been exchanged. 5. On the question of granting no opportunity, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the statements made in the writ petition and the right of the Petitioner as provided under Regulation 26 as aforesaid. On the question of non-speaking order, the learned Counsel relied upon the case of State of West Bengal vs. Atul Krishna Shaw and Another, AIR 1990 SC 2205 and Harpal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 1988 UPLBEC 213 and in respect of third ground of the Petitioner against the appellate order as based on no-speaking order, reference was made to the case of Girja Shanker Singh vs. General Manager-II Varanasi, 1992 (2) UPLBEC 851. 6. 6. On behalf of the Respondents, it has been contended that the Petitioner was granted opportunity and the relevant regulations provided one such opportunity and in the circumstances, there was no violation of the provisions of the relevant regulations. Reliance was placed upon the case of S. Govindaraju vs. Karnataka S.R.T.C. and Another, (1986) 3 SCC 273 . 7. The next contention of the Respondents was that in the matter of removal of name from the select list, no reason is required to be given. The further contention of the Respondents was that when the appellate authority was agreeing with the first authority, there is no question of giving any detailed reasons. 8. Upon considering the respective materials, it appears that even the Respondents admitted that the Petitioner's name was removed from the select list as his performance had been not satisfactory. Certain instances of such unsatisfactory service have been given in various sub-paragraphs under paragraph No. 3 of the counter-affidavit. The charges on which the Petitioner was found unsuitable are apparently very serious charges as stated in paragraph Nos. (a), (b), (c) and (d) under sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph No. 3 of the counter-affidavit which were held to be serious misconduct in my opinion, on such serious charges the order impugned herein, is, in fact, a penalty imposed for misconduct and the same is not a mere removal of the name from the select list on the ground of unsuitability. It is settled law today that, whatever the nature of the employment, if a penalty is imposed, the employer is not entitled to impose penalty under the disguise of innocuous order of termination simpliciter or removal of name from the select list. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 26.10.1987 and 5.2.1988 at Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition are hereby quashed. The Respondents are entitled to take appropriate action in respect of the Petitioner in accordance with law giving him requisite opportunities to defend himself. As the matter is a very old one, the Respondents are to complete the proceeding, if initiated, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.