JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.C. Misra, J.—Heard Shri S.P. Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. On the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed off at the admission stage in terms of the Rules of this Court. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the termination order dated 2.2.1995 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), order dated 30.1.1996 passed by the first appellate authority who is the concerned Deputy Inspector General of Police and the order dated 7.4.2000 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Inspector General of Police-respondent No. 1 on the ground that though the petitioner was appointed temporarily vide appointment order dated 1.12.1990 his services had been terminated with effect from 2.2.1995 without affording any opportunity of hearing in spite of the fact that the termination order Annexure-2 to the writ petition was punitive in nature as is apparent from the impugned order itself which refers to that on complaint an inquiry was made and was found that the charges were false and baseless but during the inquiry, one fact came to the light that the petitioner was habitual of absentee and was an employee who did not follow the directions of his superiors and displayed indiscipline and resorted to and indulged in politics. According to the respondents such allegations were quite serious and his services were terminated with immediate effect. This fact has not been denied by the respondents rather categorically admitted in paras-8 and 9 of the counter affidavit. The appeals filed before the respondents No. 2 and 3 were also rejected on the ground that since the services of the petitioner were temporary, there was no necessity for providing any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing and the revision dated 7.4.2000 has been rejected on the ground that the grounds of the revision were the same which had been raised in the earlier revision which had already been disposed off on 4.9.1997 by the predecessor of respondent No. 3. However, the revision was again disposed off on the basis that this Court had directed the authority concerned to dispose off the revision vide its order-dated 4.9.1997. 3. I find that the impugned revisional order is also not a speaking order. However, the revision was again disposed off on the basis that this Court had directed the authority concerned to dispose off the revision vide its order-dated 4.9.1997. 3. I find that the impugned revisional order is also not a speaking order. No cogent reasons have been mentioned therein for dismissing the revision except that no ground arose to re-consider the earlier order in absence of any provisions in law and as the order passed earlier was absolutely valid. It is settled law that in case the services of an employee are dispensed with even though being temporary in nature but actually founded on punitive ground without serving a show cause notice or without affording any opportunity of hearing, or after conducting a regular enquiry the said termination order is wrong, bad and illegal. In the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others, (1999) 3 SCC 60 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if finding of misconduct were arrived at in an enquiry behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as “founded” on the allegations and will be bad. It has been further held that if the order contains stigma the order of termination simplicitor would be bad. In the present case, the impugned order of termination dated 2.2.1995 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) being punitive in nature attaches stigma on the petitioner, which is inferable from the reference quoted therein and thus is liable to be set aside being wrong, bad and illegal. 4. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case and settled law, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 2.2.1995 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), and the order dated 30.1.1996 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be allowed to discharge his duty with continuity in service. However, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed with fresh proceedings against the petitioner if it so warrants in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ————