JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None has appeared for the respondent No. 3 though served. The North East Regional Institute of Parliamentary Studies, Training and Research ("the Institute" hereafter) was established in the year 1997 comprising the legislative assemblies of the seven north eastern States and the State of Sikkim. The primary objective of the institute is to promote and encourage constitutional and parliamentary studies, training and research. The institute is funded by all the eight States with matching grants from the Ministry of Human Resources Development Govt. of India and the North Eastern Council (NEC). Contributions are also accepted from the Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assemblies of the North Eastern Region and the State of Sikkim. 2. An advertisement was issued by the Institute on 15-06-2004 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Stenographer/Computer Operator at a fixed pay of Rs.3000/- per month. It appears that the interview for the aforesaid post was conducted through the employment exchange as the advertisement was sent to the Director of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam, Guwahati for necessary action. The petitioner had appeared in the interview, pursuant to which he was appointed as Stenographer-cum-Computer Operator the Institute vide the order dated 15-07-2004 issued by the Director. The appointment was for the period 01-07-2004 to 30-06-2005. Such temporary appointment of the petitioner was thereafter extended from time to time without any break. Ultimately, by the order dated 31-03-2009 issued by the Director of the Institute, the service of the petitioner was extended until further orders with effect from 01-04-2009. The said order stated that the service of the petitioner was on a very temporary basis and may be terminated without assigning any reason. By subsequent order dated 10-06-2010, the fixed pay of the petitioner was enhanced from Rs.3000/- per month to Rs.5,000/- per month with effect from 01-06-2010. 3. While in service, the petitioner was arrested in connection with Basistha P.S. Case No. 294 of 2011 registered under Section 407/ 408/ 468/ 420, IPC. The said case was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 relating to fraudulent withdrawal of money from the account of the Institute. 3. While in service, the petitioner was arrested in connection with Basistha P.S. Case No. 294 of 2011 registered under Section 407/ 408/ 468/ 420, IPC. The said case was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 relating to fraudulent withdrawal of money from the account of the Institute. This Court by order dated 23-05-2011 passed in Bail Appln. No. 744 of 2011 allowed the petitioner to go in bail. Thereafter, the Director of the Institute passed an order dated 07-05-2011 terminating the service of the petitioner with effect from the said date. Though the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Director of the Institute on 24-06-2011, no decision was taken thereon which compelled the petitioner to move this Court by filing the present petition. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioner's appointment was purely temporary and the appointment order itself is very clear that it could be terminated without assigning any reason. The affidavit further discloses that the Institute is facing financial crunch because of which the service of one Stenographer-cum-Computer Operator has been brought from the Assam Legislative Assembly on 07-05-2011. Therefore, the service of the petitioner was found to be redundant and consequently, the termination order was issued. 5. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that even in a case of temporary appointment the principles of natural justice cannot be altogether abandoned. The petitioner was in continuous employment for almost 8(eight) years and, therefore, he was entitled to a fair procedure. He submits that considering the circumstances in which the termination order was passed, it should be construed to be stigmatic in nature and, therefore, the petitioner should have been given a reasonable opportunity to make his submission. He further submits that in any case a single line order of termination is not something which can be appreciated. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab and Others, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 239 . 6. On the other hand, Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the Institute is at a very nascent stage and does not have any rules relating to matters of discipline of its staff. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the Institute is at a very nascent stage and does not have any rules relating to matters of discipline of its staff. He further submits that there are very few staff in the Institute and those are being brought from the Assam Legislative Assembly. He contends that as the petitioner was in temporary service, the moment it was found that his service was no longer required, the respondents released him from his service and nothing more should be read into it. Lastly, he submits that the delay in the disposal of the appeal was because of a change in the presidentship of the Institute. He therefore submits that if some time is given, the appeal itself can be disposed of by the authority by giving due opportunity to the petitioner. 7. The submissions made by the learned counsels have been duly considered. 8. The constitution of the Institute has already been noticed in the earlier part of this judgment. In the opinion of this Court, the Institute would come within the meaning of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As a matter of fact, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not taken the stand that it is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12. 9. Coming to the merit of the challenge, the order impugned may now be noticed, which reads as under : OFFICE OF THE NORTH EAST REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF PARLIAMENTARY STUDIES TRAINING AND RESEARCH (NERIPSTR) JAWAHAR NAGAR, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI-22 No. NERIPSTR 06/04/22 Dated Guwahati the, 7th May, 2011 ORDER Shri Mrigen Kalita, steno-cum-computer Operator is hereby terminated from the services with effect from 7th May, 2011. Sd/- (G.P. DAS) DIRECTOR Memo No. NERIPSR 06/04/22(A) Dated Guwahati the 7th May, 2011 Copy forwarded to: (1) The Hon'ble President NERIPSTR (2) Shri Mrigen Kalita, steno-cum-computer Operator (3) Order file DIRECTOR NERIPSTR 10. Though the order appears to be an innocuous one, the circumstances in which the said order was passed cannot, however, be overlooked. The petitioner was arrested in connection with a criminal case wherein the main allegation appears to be against the respondent No. 3. Though the order appears to be an innocuous one, the circumstances in which the said order was passed cannot, however, be overlooked. The petitioner was arrested in connection with a criminal case wherein the main allegation appears to be against the respondent No. 3. The Director of the Institute had lodged a first information before the Basistha police station on 02-05-2011 alleging that an amount of Rs.11,60,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn from the account of the Institute by submitting three cheques of the State Bank of India, Dispur Branch belonging to the Institute, further stating that the respondent No. 3 was the custodian of the cheque book. It was further alleged that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was deposited and credited in the account of the respondent No. 3. On the basis of such information, Basistha P.S. Case No. 282 of 2011 under Section 406/ 407/ 468/ 420, IPC has been registered. On the other hand, the respondent No. 3 lodged a complaint against the petitioner, which on being forwarded to the Basistha police station, was registered as Basistha P.S. Case No. 294 of 2011. In his complaint, the respondent No. 3 has alleged that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- came to be deposited in his account through an official cheque of the Institute for which he suspected the involvement of the petitioner. From the above, the following facts emerge. Respondent No. 3 was the custodian of the cheque book out of which three cheques were removed and used to withdraw money from the account of the Institute and a part of the said money amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- was thereafter found credited in the account of the respondent No. 3. For this the respondent No. 3 has sought to put the blame on the petitioner prima facie, the allegation made against the petitioner, appears to be quite absurd. 11. Though the impugned order is couched in innocuous terms and is also sought to be justified in such terms, the circumstances in which the said order was passed leaves no room for doubt that it is clearly relatable to the arrest of the petitioner in the criminal case and is not a termination simplicitor. The explanation given by the respondent Nos. The explanation given by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that because of financial constraints, the service of the petitioner is no longer required does not appeal to the Court as the Institute has retained the services of the other staff and only recently the fixed pay of the petitioner was enhanced. 12. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should have been provided with at least a show case notice. Failure to do so has vitiated the order of termination. Here it may be mentioned that on a query by the Court, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in so far the respondent No. 3 is concerned, he has been placed under suspension by the Institute and a departmental proceeding has been drawn up against him. 13. The law is well settled that even in a case where the employment is of a temporary nature or a person is on probation, the principle of natural justice cannot altogether be given a go-bye. More so, in a case like the present one where the circumstances which accompanied the termination order carries with it a stigma. It may also be pointed out here that the petitioner was in continuous service since the year 2004 for about 8(eight) years. 14. In the case of V.P. Ahuja (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a probationer, like a temporary servant, is also entitled to certain protection and his service cannot be terminated arbitrarily. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner was entitled to a notice and hearing prior to his termination. The absence of the same has rendered the termination arbitrary. Accordingly, the impugned order of termination dated 07-05-2011 is hereby set aside. Since the termination order has been set aside, the petitioner shall be reinstated in his temporary service, subject to such orders as may be passed by the respondents in accordance with law. 16. Writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. Petition allowed.