JUDGMENT 1. - The matter is placed on the Board for final hearing. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the writ petition. 3. The petitioner, in response to the applications invited by respondent s No. 3, was appointed after selection as Class IV employee under the Order dated 2nd of December. 1991 on daily wages of Rs. 22/- per day/Rs. 572/-per month. Initially the petitioner was appointed for a period of six months. There are documents available on the record where-under her terms of appointment had been extended till further orders. 4. Under the order dated 26th of August, 1995 her services were brought to en end. That was done without giving her any notice or opportunity of hearing. She was not paid wages from April, 1995 to July, 1995. She made application to the respondent No. 3 on 4th of August, 1995 in this regard. The respondent No. 3. it is submitted, got furious on this act of the petitioner to make demand of payment of salary. 5. On 25th of August, 1995 when she went to the office of respondent No. 3 at about 4.30 PM to deliver the mail of the school, the respondent No. 3, on seeing her became furious and started misbehaving with her, using vulgar language and got her pushed out of the gate through Satish Babu, Ramakant and Laxman and not only the Official mail was refused to be taken but also gave her threatening of disciplinary action against the Teacher and the Headmaster who certified her working and that they will be given charge-sheet. 6. The ground given for termination of her services is stigma. The petitioner was appointed after selection, though may be on daily wages. Where the respondent No. 3 wanted to dislodge the petitioner from service and that too on the misconduct alleged to have been committed by her, that could have been done after making observance of the principles of natural justice and fair play. She should have been given a notice and opportunity of hearing, but that has not been done. 7. From the reply to the writ petition I find that the petitioner was not paid the salary for the period from April to July, 1995. The payment of salaries were sought to be made only after her services were brought to an end. 7. From the reply to the writ petition I find that the petitioner was not paid the salary for the period from April to July, 1995. The payment of salaries were sought to be made only after her services were brought to an end. It is what clearly borne out from pare No. 5 of the reply to the writ petition. The petitioner girevanced that the respondent No. 3 felt offended because she demanded the salary, stands corroborated. Thus the respondent No. 3 has acted highly arbitrarily and perversely in the matter of a low paid employee. l do not find any justification in this action of the respondent No. 3 to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground, what it is stated in the order of termination. He became a judge in his own cause which is not proper as being not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order dated 26th of August, 1995 terminating the services of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits for which she is entitled, had she been in service for the period. 9. It is a fit case for award of costs in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 2000/- as costs to the petitioner. The amount of costs be paid to the petitioner personally by account payee Cheque/DD/Pay order. All this exercise is to be undertaken so and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.Writ Petition Allowed with Costs. *******