JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has approached this court with prayer that impugned order of termination of his services be quashed and he be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 2. The contextual facts depict that the petitioner had earlier assailed the order of termination of his services dated June 29, 1996 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5670/1996. While disposing the writ petition on December 19, 1996 this Court issued following directions : "(i) on filing a certified copy of this order the respondent No.2 i.e. Chairman, Rajasthan State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Jaipur shall consider the notice for demand of justice served upon him objectively by a speaking order and the result of the same shall be communicated with reasons to the petitioner. In case, it is found that the petitioner's termination has been wrongly made then he shall be given re-appointment with consequential benefits. (ii) It is made dear that if the claim of the petitioner is rejected by the respondent No.2 after consideration, he shall be free to challenge the said order in accordance with law." 3. It has been further averred in the writ petition that the petitioner did appear in the typing test after his name was forwarded by the employment exchange to the respondent Board, the petitioner was called for the interview. The respondent instead of declaring the result of interview, gave appointment to one Yugal Kishore Yadav whose name was not forwarded by the employment exchange. When the petitioner raised objection against the said illegal appointment, the respondents issued appointment letter on Sept. 7, 1995 to the petitioner appointing him on adhoc basis. The services of the petitioner were extended from time to time but were not regularised despite the fact that his name was sponsored by the employment exchange obviously for the reasons to accommodate other recommended persons. Respondent Board after appointing the petitioner gave appointment to Sudhir Kala and Dwarka Prasad Gothwal. Sudhir Kala was given regular pay scale despite the fact that he was not sponsored by the employment exchange. On June 29, 1996 the petitioner was served with a letter of termination of his services issued by the Secretary of the Board. 4. Certified copy of this court order dated December 19, 1996 was filed by the petitioner before the respondent Board, Secretary of the Board vide letter dated Feb. On June 29, 1996 the petitioner was served with a letter of termination of his services issued by the Secretary of the Board. 4. Certified copy of this court order dated December 19, 1996 was filed by the petitioner before the respondent Board, Secretary of the Board vide letter dated Feb. 21, 1997 (Annexure-1) wrote to the counsel of the petitioner that during the entire service period the work of the petitioner was found wholly unsatisfactory. The petitioner was provided with chances to improve the work but he could not improve it and therefore his services were not extended. 5. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition and pleaded that the representation of the petitioner was considered objectively by the respondents as per directions of this court. As the petitioner failed in typing test there was no occasion to continue with the contract work awarded to him. In para 5 the respondents pleaded thus "It is submitted that the name of the petitioner was recommended by the Employment Exchange. In fact the petitioner was not given any appointment but it was merely a contract assigned to the petitioner for doing the typing work of the Head Office of the respondent Board on a consideration of an amount of र 1000/- per month only. After giving one or two chances to the petitioner, it was found by the respondent Board that on the basis of fake certificate of the experience of typing, the petitioner got contract of typing in his favour." (Emphasis supplied) 6. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 7. Admittedly the letter of appointment dated Sept. 7, 1995 (Annexure-6) was issued by Smt. Sariya Khan, the Chairman of the respondent Board and the order of termination dated June 29, 1996 (Annexure-7) was signed by P.Prakash, the Secretary of the Board. Reply to the representation of the petitioner was also signed by P. Prakash the Secretary of the Board as is evident from perusal of the letter dated Feb. 21, 1997(Annexure-1). In my view Secretary of the Board had no authority to terminate the services of the petitioner. 8. Reply to the representation of the petitioner was also signed by P. Prakash the Secretary of the Board as is evident from perusal of the letter dated Feb. 21, 1997(Annexure-1). In my view Secretary of the Board had no authority to terminate the services of the petitioner. 8. Further a combined look at the letter Annexure-1 and para 5 of the reply to the writ petition demonstrates that work of the petitioner was wholly unsatisfactory and it was found that on the basis of fake certificates of the experience of typing the petitioner was successful in getting the job. It is thus evident that services of the petitioner were terminated on the basis of allegation of misconduct. Termination of the service for the misconduct amounts to the imposition of a penalty. As termination order was passed without affording opportunity to the petitioner, it was arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of the above the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order of termination dated June 29, 1996 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in the services forthwith with all consequential benefits. Costs easy.Petition allowed. *******