JUDGMENT 1. - After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and careful appraisal of material on record, I am satisfied that no substantial question of law is involved in the instance second appeal. I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts below. Suit instituted by the plaintiff respondent was decreed by the trial court on December 11, 1989 cancelling the termination order dated December 3, 1986 issued by the defendant appellants. Lower appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated August 19, 1996 dismissed the regular first appeal preferred by the defendant appellants. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that services of the plaintiff were not terminated on the ground of misconduct therefore departmental enquiry was not necessary. Reliance was placed on State of U.P. v. Prem Lata Misra AIR 1994 SC 2411 Managing Director ECIL v. B. Karunakar AIR 1994 SC 1074 and State of Haryana v. Jagdish Chander AIR 1995 SC 984 . 2. On the other hand on behalf of the plaintiff respondent it was contended that services of the plaintiff were terminated on the ground that he had lost the confidence of the employer and therefore termination order which was passed without conducting the departmental enquiry was bad. Reliance was placed on Chandu Lal v. Management AIR 1985 SC 1128 and Ram Kumar Bairwa v. R.S.R.T.C. RLW 1989(1) 675 . 3. In K.K. Laxman v. Pan American World Airways AIR 1987 SC 229 their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that termination of the services on account of loss of confidence also amounts to stigma. 4. In Prem Lata Misra's case (supra) the services were terminated on account of unsatisfactory work and conduct and it was observed that order of termination was issued on the ground of unsatisfactory and unfitness but not by way of punishment as a punitive measure. Thus ratio of Prem Lata Misra case is not applicable in the instant matter. Case of Managing Director ECIL v. B. Karunakar (supra) is also distinguishable. In that case copy of inquiry report was not furnished to the employee. It was held that the employee should be furnished a copy of inquiry report and opportunity should be afforded to him to show as to how prejudice was caused to him. 5. Case of Managing Director ECIL v. B. Karunakar (supra) is also distinguishable. In that case copy of inquiry report was not furnished to the employee. It was held that the employee should be furnished a copy of inquiry report and opportunity should be afforded to him to show as to how prejudice was caused to him. 5. Ratio of case of Jagdish Chander (supra) is also not applicable in the instant matter. Referring the ECIL v. B. Karunaker it was observed that the State would be directed to hold an enquiry and to give opportunity to the employee who was a regular absentee and whose termination was found punitive. 6. I therefore hold that termination of the services on account of loss of confidence amounts to stigma and disciplinary enquiry before issuance of such termination order was necessary. I do not see any error in the findings of the courts below. 7. Instant second appeal accordingly stands dismissed summarily. Costs easy.Second Appeal Dismissed. *******