JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner in this writ application calls in question the legality of the order dated 12.10.1991 in Annexure-1 informing him that his service has been dispensed with as his involvement in a theft is not ruled out. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as sweeper-cum-water man in the Cuttack Gramya Bank in July, 1984 and was posted at Aul Branch of the Bank. The peti¬tioner worked in the said branch and thereafter was transferred and posted at different branches of the bank in the district of Cuttack and his last posting was in Sankhatras Branch where he was working as Sweeper-cum-Water man. While he was working in the aforesaid branch of the Bank, on 20th March, 1990 an incident of burgulary was committed by some unknown miscreants who broke open the window grills and also tried to break open the ironshelf but failed. Having failed in their attempt to commit theft of the cash, the miscreants took away the calculator kept on the table and one piece of master key. On that date the petitioner was sleeping inside the Bank office and accordingly he was suspected to be involved in commission of the theft. The further case of the petitioner is that the police after investigation submitted final form stating that though the allegation of theft is cor¬rect, sufficient materials are not available for submission of charge-sheet. The final form was submitted on 15.9.1990. After submission of the final form, no objection was filed by the informant and accordingly the same was accepted by the learned J.M.F.C. (Rural), Cuttack by order dated 31.11.1990. The case of the petitioner is that during the investigation by the police he was not allowed to work by the bank and after submission of final form though he was entitled to be retained in service the im¬pugned letter in Annexure-1 dated 12.10.91 was issued informing him that the bank does not want to retain him in service on the ground that his involvement in the theft case is not ruled out. 3. Shri Mohanty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the action of the bank basically on two grounds. (1) The petitioner being a daily wage worker, his services could not have been dispensed with without complying Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Shri Mohanty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the action of the bank basically on two grounds. (1) The petitioner being a daily wage worker, his services could not have been dispensed with without complying Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. (2) Since the letter in Annexure-1 casts a stigma, he should have given an opportunity of hearing. 4. The opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was sleeping in the office premises in the night the theft took place and while submitting the final form also the investigating officer observed that the petitioner was strongly suspected but the evidence was no sufficient to submit a charge-sheet. According to the opposite parties, since the petitioner was the prime suspect in the offence and charge-sheet could not be submitted because of insufficiency of evi¬dence, such person could not be retained by the bank and there¬fore, it was decided to dispense with the service of the peti¬tioner on the self same ground. The learned counsel appearing for the bank submitted that the observation made in the letter in Annexure-1 is only a reflection of what the investigating officer observed in the final form and does not cast a stigma. He further submitted that the petitioner being a daily wage worker and there being no material on record to show that he had completed 240 working days in a calendar year, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is liable to be set aside for non-compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Dis¬putes Act has also no force. 5. On perusal of the documents filed along with the peti¬tion, it appears that the petitioner has not filed a single docu¬ment indicating his appointment in the bank at any point of time. However, from the orders in Annexure-1 and 4 it appears that he had been engaged by the bank as a water-boy. Though these two documents indicate engagement of the petitioner as a water-man, there is no other material to show that the petitioner worked for 240 days in a calendar year so as to claim the benefit under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Though these two documents indicate engagement of the petitioner as a water-man, there is no other material to show that the petitioner worked for 240 days in a calendar year so as to claim the benefit under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, it was open for the petitioner to raise a dispute and in absence of any material on record, it is difficult for this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 to accept the contention of the petitioner without support of any document. 8. So far as the second point raised by the learned coun¬sel for the petitioner is concerned, the Investigation Officer while submitting the final form observed as follows : Though the water boy was strongly suspected, the evidence is not sufficient to book him in the case. The Manager of Cuttack Gramya Bank who has issued Annexure-1 appears to have taken the language from the final report while issuing the aforesaid letter and observed that the involvement of the petitioner in the theft case is not ruled out. In our view, the observation made in Annexure-1 is not stigmatic. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and another reported in AIR 2002 SC 23 . In the aforesaid decision an observation in the impugned order was made to the effect that “work and conduct has not been found to be satisfaction”. The Apex Court in considering the same held in not to be stigmatic. Since the observation made in Annexure-1 is not stigmatic, there was no necessity for the bank to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before issuing the letter in Annexure-1. 7. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ application and accordingly dispose of the same with the observa¬tion made above. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Application disposed of.