JUDGMENT Per : Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat By means of this Writ Petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.12.2006 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure no.7, 7A, 7B to this writ petition). ii) Issue any order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. iii) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioners.” 2. Brief facts for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioners Km. Madhuri Sharma, Km. Aparajita Bhattacharya and Navneet Sharma were appointed as Lecturer on temporary basis in Uttaranchal Open University, Haldwani vide letters dated 28th October, 2006, 1st November, 2006 and 29th October, 2006 issued by respondent No. 3-Registrar of the University respectively. It was further alleged in the petition that the Vice Chancellor of the university terminated the services of a Class IV employee arbitrary manner and thereafter the employees of the University got agitated and went on strike. The strike was called off when the matter came to an end after an assurance given by the Registrar of the University. It was further alleged that on 26th December, 2006, the petitioners Km. Madhuri Sharma and Km. Aparajita Bhattacharya were called by the respondent No. 2-Vice Chancellor to discuss about the expert committee meeting but they were subjected to sexual harassment there. The petitioners moved complaint to the Registrar of the University but he refused to accept the complaint and did not take any action. The petitioners informed their colleagues about this incident and they decided to raise voice against the misbehaviour of the Vice Chancellor. Thereafter, the petitioners were terminated from their services on 28th December, 2006 by the Registrar of the University in an arbitrary manner and without giving any opportunity of hearing to them. It was further alleged that the termination orders of the petitioners were in violation of natural justice because the termination orders were not termination simpliciter. It was further alleged that the Vice Chancellor of the University called a press conference and gave a press note about the termination of the petitioners in order to defame them. It was further alleged that the termination orders of the petitioners were in violation of natural justice because the termination orders were not termination simpliciter. It was further alleged that the Vice Chancellor of the University called a press conference and gave a press note about the termination of the petitioners in order to defame them. It was further alleged that as per the provisions of Uttaranchal Open University Act, 2005, there must be reasoned order of the termination of any employee. It was further alleged that the Registrar has no power to pass the termination order without giving show cause notice as per the rules. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred this petition. 3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and pleaded that the petitioners were appointed purely on temporary basis for fixed period and their appointment would have come to an end on 28.02.2007. It was further pleaded that as per the appointment order, the services of the petitioners were liable to be terminated at any time without prior notice. It was further pleaded that after receiving the termination orders, the petitioners have sent a complaint dated 26.12.2006 by post. It was further pleaded that the petitioners have made complaint dated 02/01/2007 and 03/01/2007 before the State Women’s Commission and National Women’s Commission against the respondent No. 4. It was further pleaded that the petitioners were making all sorts of desperate attempts to defame the respondent No. 4 after their termination. The petitioners have filed false criminal complaint against the respondent No. 4 only to put pressure on him to withdraw their termination orders. It was further pleaded that whenever the petitioners were entering in the University premises creating a law and order problem. At last, it was pleaded that the petitioners have filed the writ petition by making false and misleading averments against the respondent No. 4, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The petitioners have also filed their rejoinder affidavit reiterating the same averments which they have made in the writ petition. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the termination orders cast stigma upon the petitioners. 4. The petitioners have also filed their rejoinder affidavit reiterating the same averments which they have made in the writ petition. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the termination orders cast stigma upon the petitioners. It was further contended that respondent No. 3 – Registrar of the University terminated the services of the petitioners on 28th December, 2006, although the petitioners were appointed to 28.02.2007, after levelling serious charges without giving any opportunity to rebut the charges and the termination orders were not termination simpliciter. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 refuted the contention and contended that the petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands and the merits of the impugned termination order could not be assailed in such circumstances. It was further contended that the petitioners had levelled certain allegations of sexual harassment against the respondent No. 4 – Prof. S.S. Hasan, Vice Chancellor of the University but they could not substantiate their allegations before the Court, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. 7. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners Km. Madhuri Sharma, Km. Aparajita Bhattacharya and Navneet Sharma were appointed as Lecturer on temporary basis in the University vide letter dated 28th October, 2006, 1st November, 2006 and 29th October, 2006 respectively by an identical order. The appointment order of the petitioner No. 1 Km. Madhuri Sharma is quoted hereunder:- “To, Ms. Madhuri Sharma B-1/A 37, 38, 39 Ansal Bldg. Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Delhi – 110009 Sub : Uttaranchal Open University-Offer of engagement as a Lecturer on temporary basis (Full-time)-Regarding. Ref : Your letter No. – Nil dated : 24th Oct, 2006 Dear Madhuri, Your request for temporary appointment in the discipline of History has been considered and you are offered the appointment of Lecturer on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 8000 – 13500 from the date of joining to 28.02.07. Your appointment will be governed by the following terms and conditions :- 1. Your basic pay will be Rs. 8000/- per month plus Dearness pay and dearness allowances as admissible. You will not be entitled to any other allowance. 2. This is purely a temporary arrangement and you will have no claim to be regularized as lecturer. 3. Your appointment will be governed by the following terms and conditions :- 1. Your basic pay will be Rs. 8000/- per month plus Dearness pay and dearness allowances as admissible. You will not be entitled to any other allowance. 2. This is purely a temporary arrangement and you will have no claim to be regularized as lecturer. 3. During the period of this tenure, you will write minimum 4 units of the course assigned. 4. As and when required, you will conduct counseling and tutorial sessions. 5. You can also be assigned the duty to evaluate the assignments. 6. Any other duty that can be assigned from time to time by the competent authorities. 7. Your appointment can be terminated without assigning any reason and without issuance of any notice. During the period of engagement you will be under the overall control and supervision of the Vice Chancellor. You will be entitled for 2 ½ days leave for every completed calendar month of service. Not more than six day leave will be sanctioned at one time. This offer is sent in duplicate. If offer is acceptable, you may kindly return one copy duly signed as a token having accepted the offer with all terms and conditions. Yours faithfully, Registrar” 8. It is apparent from the perusal of the appointment letter that the petitioners were appointed as Lecturer on temporary basis, w.e.f. their joining to 28.02.2007. Their services were on temporary basis and they were appointed for fixed time period. But before the completion of fixed time period of their employment, their services were terminated by respondent No. 3-Registrar of the University by three different identical orders on 28.12.2006. The termination order of the petitioner No. 1 Km. Madhuri Sharma is quoted hereunder:- “Ref. No. UOU/Admn01/194/96… Date 28/12/2006 Dear Ms. Madhuri I have been directed by the Vice Chancellor to convey the following: On 12/12/2006 when the University again started functioning in a normal way, you gave me an assurance to mend your earlier activities and realized your mistake due to which the University was paralyzed from 1/12/06 to 12/12/06. On your assurance it was decided that you could be allowed to continue as purely temporary lecturer in the Department of History. Although you have been appointed as Lecturer due to an acute emergency without any Selection Committee. On your assurance it was decided that you could be allowed to continue as purely temporary lecturer in the Department of History. Although you have been appointed as Lecturer due to an acute emergency without any Selection Committee. During this period I observed that despite your assurances you did not mend your activities and continued to disturb the normal functioning of the University. You have not been concentrating on your job for which you were appointed and also not had been behaving like a teacher. You have been maligning University authorities baselessly and without any reason. You again started indulging yourself in such activities, which was not conducive to maintaining healthy and Academic atmosphere on the University Campus. You have been accusing University authorities with trumped up charges with a malifide intention and subjective approach. You have been regularly inviting media persons on the University Campus without any prior permission and information from the competent University authority. You have also been accusing University authorities as per your statement in the press coverage on 28/12/06 on the false pretext and without any substantial ground, and also involved yourself in mudslinging and hurling abusive remarks against University authorities. I have also been reported that off and on you have been giving threats of dire consequences to other Academic Staff specially lady teachers to towing with you in the activities stipulated above. Your above referred subversive activities has vitiated and spoiled the entire academic atmosphere of the University and created law and order problems. Therefore, keeping in view of your above activities, your services as purely temporary Lecturer in the department of History are hereby terminated with immediate effect i.e. 28th December 2006 afternoon. Please note that your entry on the University Campus is prohibited as a precautionary measures of any law and order problem. Registrar” 9. Perusal of the aforesaid termination order reveals that it casts stigma on the petitioners. The petitioners’ services have been terminated on the ground of mis-conduct which they are alleged to have committed during the course of their employment. It is well settled position of law, the services of a temporary Government servant can be terminated at any time according to the terms and conditions of his services by a simpliciter termination order. The petitioners’ services have been terminated on the ground of mis-conduct which they are alleged to have committed during the course of their employment. It is well settled position of law, the services of a temporary Government servant can be terminated at any time according to the terms and conditions of his services by a simpliciter termination order. Where the appointment had been made on temporary basis and the services were terminated without notice and assigning any reason, the services of such person if terminated by a simpliciter order, the employee is not entitled to be heard before terminating his services. It is also now well established if there is any stigma in the order of termination of temporary Government servant which constitute a penal consequence, then Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India would be attracted. If the order contains some aspersions or reflections on the conduct, efficiency, etc. made in the order which would adversely effect future prospects relating to employment, definitely such order cannot be passed without taking recourse of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. If the termination order is passed by way of punishment, the employee is entitled to be heard before passing the termination order. In the instant case, the respondent No. 3-Registrar of the University passed the impugned orders terminating the services of the petitioners casting aspersions and reflections on the conduct, efficiency of the petitioners. These aspersions would adversely affect the future prospects relating to the employment of the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners were entitled to be heard before terminating their services. There is no averment in the counter affidavit that the appointing authority, i.e., respondent No. 3-Registrar of the University had ever given any notice or had given any opportunity as provided under the Constitution before terminating the services of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 could not demonstrate us that the inquiry was conducted before terminating the services of the petitioners or they were heard before passing the impugned order. Thus, the termination orders are violative of the principle of natural justice and are liable to be quashed. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appointment of the petitioners was to expire on 28th February, 2007 and their services were terminated on 28.12.2006. Their term would have been completed after the expiry of the stipulated period in the appointment letter. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appointment of the petitioners was to expire on 28th February, 2007 and their services were terminated on 28.12.2006. Their term would have been completed after the expiry of the stipulated period in the appointment letter. As such, the petitioners now after the expiry of the term of their ‘fixed term appointment’ are not entitled to be reinstated on the post which they were holding at the time of passing the impugned order. However, the petitioners were not allowed to work during the period when they were entitled to work in the University. As such, the petitioners are entitled to get the salary, allowances admissible to them in accordance with the appointment letter from the date of their termination, i.e., from 28.12.2006 to 28.02.2007. 10. The petitioners Km. Madhuri Sharma and Km. Aparajita Bhattacharya have made certain allegations against respondent No. 4 that they had been subjected to sexual harassment by him. They have also alleged that a complaint to that effect was also made but it was not received by the respondent (copy of the same is annexed with the petition as Annexure-4 & 5). The respondent Nos. 3 & 4, Registrar and Prof. S.S. Hasan, Vice Chancellor have rebutted the averments made in the writ petition. It is also apparent from the perusal of the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that complaints in this connection had been made before the State Women’s Commission and National Women’s Commission. While deciding the writ petition, this court cannot enter into th3e disputed question of fact and cannot take the evidence in this writ petition. The State Women’s Commission and the National Women’s Commission are the facts finding bodies and the matter has already been preferred before the said Commissions. In these circumstances, we would not like to enter into the controversy as to whether there was sexual harassment of the petitioners or not. As a matter of fact, this disputed question cannot be decided in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. We are refraining from making any comments of the merits of the averments made in the complaints or in the petition regarding the sexual harassment as the matter has been referred to the facts finding bodies. As a matter of fact, this disputed question cannot be decided in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. We are refraining from making any comments of the merits of the averments made in the complaints or in the petition regarding the sexual harassment as the matter has been referred to the facts finding bodies. The facts finding bodies are yet to investigate the matter and had to take a proper decision. 12. In view of the above, we are quashing the impugned order of termination only on the ground that it being stigmatic and in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution. It is open to the facts finding bodies to ascertain factual aspect of the sexual harassment meted out to the petitioners. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the termination orders dated 28th December, 2006 are hereby quashed. The petitioners are entitled to receive the salary and admissible allowances for the period 28.12.2006 to 28.02.2007. 14. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent accordingly. 15. No order as to costs.