Judgment By means of this petition moved under article 227 of Constitution of India. the petitioners have challenged order dated 28-03-2009, passed by District Judge, Almora in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2009, whereby the termination order passed by the petitioners, terminating the services of the respondent, is set aside. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper on that court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1993, the respondent Naresh Kumar Talreja was appointed as a Games teacher in the school run by the petitioners. By the order dated 30th Sep. 1995, services of the respondent were confirmed. However confirmation in service contained a condition that the respondent's services would be liable to be terminated without assigning any reason by giving one month's notice or by making payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof. Vide order dated 27-09-2008 services of the respondent were terminated by the management. Aggrieved by said order, the respondent challenged said order before District Judge, Almora, conferred with powers of the Tribunal constituted under Notification No. 240-One(1)/Thirty Six (1)/Judicial Section/2005 dated 5th of July, 2005 issued by Government of Uttarakhand. The District Judge exercising powers under said Notification entertained the appeal of the respondent. After hearing the parties, the District Judge/Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order of termination passed by the petitioner No.2 (Principal, Ashok Hall Girls Residential School, Majkhali, districtAlmora). Hence this petition. 4. Admittedly, the respondent was appointed as Games teacher in 1993. It is also not disputed that his services were confirmed on 30th of September 1995. It is also not disputed that one of the conditions in the confirmation letter empowered the management to terminate the services of the respondent by giving him one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof. The said condition which is numbered 11 in the letter of confirmation dated 22-12-1994 (copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition) reads as under: "11. Your services on confirmation are liable to be terminated on one months notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof. Similarly, if you will choose to leave the service yourself you will have to serve one month notice to the management and render proper account of the store before your are allowed to be relieved. " 5. Your services on confirmation are liable to be terminated on one months notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof. Similarly, if you will choose to leave the service yourself you will have to serve one month notice to the management and render proper account of the store before your are allowed to be relieved. " 5. The aforesaid condition mentioned in the confirmation letter of the respondent itself shows that services of the respondent were liable to be terminated on one month's notice or by payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof. The termination order (copy of which is Annexure-11 to the petition) reads as under :- To 27th September 2008 Sir, Mr. Naresh Kumar Talreja Rai Estate Ranikhet District Almora Subject : Letter of termination. You were appointed as Taekwondo teacher for conducting Taekwondeo training classes at our school. Since the school administration has decided not to continue Taekwondeo training classes, your services are no more required. Thus your services hereby are terminated as per terms and conditions of your appointment letter. A draft no. 137381 dated 29-09-2008 for an amount of Rs. 11,907/- (Rupees Eleven thousand nine hundred seven only) as payment towards one month notice period salary is enclosed herewith. Request acknowledge receipt of the same. You are also advised collect full and final payment after producing no does certificate. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (V. Chaudhary) Principal Enclosed: Draft as above. " 6. Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent drew attention of this court to regulation 38 contained in the Service Rules for teaching staff (copy of which is Annexure- 2 to the petition) which reads as under : "38. Every teacher shall be liable to appropriate punishment, including inter alia, dismissal without notice or pay in lieu thereof, discharge with one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof, demotion, stoppage or reduction in increment, reduction of pay, suspension, etc. on being found guilty of misconduct after having been given adequate and reasonable opportunity in accordance with the principles of nature justice to defend herself. " 7. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the respondent was not given opportunity of being heard before the termination order was passed as such the Learned District Judge/Tribunal rightly set aside the order term inating the services of the respondent. " 7. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the respondent was not given opportunity of being heard before the termination order was passed as such the Learned District Judge/Tribunal rightly set aside the order term inating the services of the respondent. In the opinion of this Court had there been stigma made in the order terminating the services of the respondent on the basis of the regulation No. 38, it could have been said that the respondent was not given opportunity of being heard. But the order terminating the services of the respondent is not an order of dismissal or order of any punishment. Rather as quoted above, the order terminating the services of the respondent shows that the Institution is not interested to continue with the Taekwondo training classes and as such it does not require the services of the respondent. That being so, it cannot be said that the order challenged by the respondent was stigmatic in its nature. 8. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that termination order passed by the petitioners should not be seen as it appears on the face of it but a veil should be lifted to know intention on the part of the employer. In this connection, reference was made to para 7 of the counter affidavit (copy of which isAnnexure-13 to this petition) filed on behalf of the respondent before the District Judge/Tribunal in appeal No.• 7 of 2008 in which it has been stated on behalf of the present petitioners that on 24-08-2008 an occurrence took place in the market area of Ranikhet in which the respondent had beaten one Bharat Singh and Mahipal Singh and attempted to commit murder of Mahendra Pal Singh by throwing him in front of running vehicle. It is further stated in said counter affidavit that a first information report was lodged against present respondent at police station Ranikhet which was registered as Crime No. 883 of 2008 relating to offence under section 307,325,323 & 506 I.P.C. Even if what has been stated on behalf of the employer could be one of the reasons for terminating the services of the respondent, but the termination order itself shows that since the institution does not want to impart Taekwondo training and does not require services of the respondent, is an independent reasons terminate to the services of the respondent under condition No. 11 of his appointment confirmation letter read with regulation 7 of Service Rules of Teaching Staff (copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition) which reads as under :"The services of a permanent teacher shall at all times be liable to termination by either party without assigning any reason thereto on the expiry of one month from the date of service upon the other of a notice thereof in writing or by the payment or by the forfeiture, as the case may be, of one month's salary in lieu thereof" 9. On behalf of the respondent reliance is placed in the principle of law in Nehrau Yuva Kendra Sangthan Versus Mehbub Alam Laskar (2008) 2 SCC page 479 and also to para 64 of T.M.A. Pai Foundation Versus State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC page 547 and it is contended that the termination order could (sic, not) have been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. I have gone through the aforesaid case laws and do not find that the same are of any help to the respondent in this case. In the case of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangthan (Supra) the employee was a Central Government servant and he was not subject to the same conditions applicable to the present respondent. In para 64 of the T.MA Pai Foundation (supra) it is nowhere mentioned that an employee who has accepted the conditions that his services were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason on payment of one month's salary is required to be given opportunity of being heard before the termination order is passed. In para 64 of the T.MA Pai Foundation (supra) it is nowhere mentioned that an employee who has accepted the conditions that his services were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason on payment of one month's salary is required to be given opportunity of being heard before the termination order is passed. This court cannot close its right (sic, eyes) to the fact that the termination order makes it clear that since Taekwondo classes are not intended to be run by the institute as such the services of the respondent were terminated in terms of conditions agreed between the respondent and the petitioners. 10. For the reasons as discussed above this writ petition deserves to be allowed, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order dated 2-3-2009 passed by District Judge/Educational Tribunal, Almora in miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.7 of 2008 is set aside. However no order as to costs.