JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.03.2008 issued by the Secretary (Admn.), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (`AVVNL'), Ajmer, whereby the service of the petitioner, holding the post of Junior Engineer-II as Probationer Trainee, stand terminated. 2. The relevant facts in the nutshell are that the petitioner entered the services of the AVVNL on being appointed to the post of Junior Engineer-II (Electrical) against the vacancies of the experienced quota as "Probationer Trainee" on the fixed remuneration of Rs. 4950/- per month for a period of two years. As per the terms and conditions of the appointment order, the services of the petitioner as Probationer Trainee were liable to be terminated at any time by giving one month's notice in writing or by giving one month's remuneration in lieu thereof; except in case of misconduct of any description where services could be terminated as per relevant provisions contained in AVVNL Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1962 ("Regulations of 1962") without giving any kind of notice. 3. On 29.02.2008, while the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer-II, Probationer Trainee at AVVNL, Merta, a complaint was lodged by Assistant Engineer (Vigilance) AVVNL, Nagaur at Police Station, Electricity Theft Prevention, Nagaur, alleging therein that on 19.02.2008 when the Vigilance Team of AVVNL along with police personnels went to Village Pundlu to check the theft of electricity, they found that in the agricultural field of one Shri Jalaram S/o Ghamanda Ram, there was a 40KV Transformer installed, which was connected illegally with 11KV line of AVVNL. The Vigilance team found that the motor installed on the Tube-well of Jalaram was being operated by electricity supply through the transformer connected with 11KV line of AVVNL illegally. Accordingly, the transformer was seized and site inspection report was prepared. 4. On the basis of the complaint lodged as aforesaid, an FIR No. 49/2008 was registered at Police Station, Nagaur and the investigation commenced. 5. During the investigation, it was revealed that after completion of all formalities, the connection was released in favour of Shri Jalaram on 7.3.2008 and therefore, as on 19.2.2008 there was no legally issued connection was in existence in the name of Jalaram. As per the record of AWNL, the connection was released in favour of Jalaram after completion of necessary formalities only on 7.3.2008. As per the record of AWNL, the connection was released in favour of Jalaram after completion of necessary formalities only on 7.3.2008. It was further revealed that the equipments for installation of electricity connection in favour of Shri Jalaram were issued by the Store Keeper Shri Santosh Kumar under the order bearing signature of the petitioner herein. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was arrested by the police on 25.3.2008. 6. On the basis of the incident occurred as aforesaid, the petitioner's services were ordered to be terminated with immediate effect vide order dated 27.3.2008 issued by the Secretary (Adorn.) AVVNL, Ajmer. The contents of the termination order dated 27.3.2008 issued by the Secretary AWNL, Ajmer, germane to the matter in dispute, are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "Sh. Tarun Kumar Khatri, JEN-II-Probationer Trainee O/O the Assistant Engineer, AVVNL, Merta, has been arrested by the Dy.S.P.(Vig.), AVVNL, Ajmer on Dated 25.03.08 in the case of issue of Nigam's material illegally and in connivance with consumer helped in theft of electricity, and case under Section 135/136 & 150 of Indian Electricity Act-2003 was registered against him and was remained in judicial custody from 25-03-08 to 26-03-08 and Criminal Offence against him, is under investigation. Sh. Tarun Kumar Khatri S/o Sh. Khushal Chand Khatri, was appointed as JEN-II-Probationer Trainee for a period of 2 years vide order No. 05/D.69 Dated 04,04.07 and whereas a criminal case has been registered against the said official by APTP Thana, Nagaur for the aforesaid theft of electricity in connivance with consumer and issue of material illegally. In view of terms & conditions of his appointment order the service of the said official is prima-facie unsatisfactory and is covered under definition of misconduct as per Reg.28 (i) of Employees Conduct Regulation-1976. Now, therefore, the Chairman & Managing Director, AVVNL, Ajmer- being the appointing authority and in view of powers conferred under Schedule-II of CC&AR-1962 of E/W RSEB and in view of condition No. (3) of his appointment order dated 04.04,07, has ordered to Terminate the said Sh. Tarun Kumar Khatri, JEN-II-Probationer Trainee, from the Nigam Services with immediate effect. Accordingly, the services of Sh. Tarun Kumar Khatri, JEN-II-Probationer Trainee, is hereby Terminated from the Nigam, with immediate effect. By Order Secretary (Admn.) AVVNL, Ajmer" 7. Tarun Kumar Khatri, JEN-II-Probationer Trainee, from the Nigam Services with immediate effect. Accordingly, the services of Sh. Tarun Kumar Khatri, JEN-II-Probationer Trainee, is hereby Terminated from the Nigam, with immediate effect. By Order Secretary (Admn.) AVVNL, Ajmer" 7. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet has already been filed inter-alia against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 135, 136 and 150 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 ("the Act of 2003"). Thereupon, the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur took the cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and other co-accused vide order dated 17.5.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision petition being No. 935/2008 which was admitted by this Court vide order dated 12.9.2008 and further proceedings in the criminal case pending before the trial court stand stayed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed by the respondent No. 2 in most arbitrary and cursory manner, without application of the mind. Learned counsel submitted that the order on the face of it, is stigmatic and punitive inasmuch as it is specifically mentioned therein that the involvement of the petitioner in the case of theft of electricity is covered under the definition of `misconduct' as per Regulation 28 (i) of AVVNL Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976 ("Regulations, 1976"). Learned counsel submits that admittedly before passing the order impugned which is stigmatic, no regular inquiry was conducted into the charges of misconduct levelled and therefore, the order impugned passed in total disregard of the principles of natural justice deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel submitted that since the Regulation 28 (i) of Regulation, 1976 pertains to taking or giving bribe or any illegal gratification whatsoever, disloyalty and corruption, the termination of services of the petitioner on the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him cannot but deemed to be punitive and therefore the petitioner's services could not have been terminated without holding a regular inquiry. In support of the contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 239 , Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India and Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 588 , Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Mehbub Alam Laskar, (2008) 2 SCC 479 and Union of India and Ors. State of Punjab & Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 239 , Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India and Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 588 , Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Mehbub Alam Laskar, (2008) 2 SCC 479 and Union of India and Ors. v. Mahaveer C. Singhvi, (2010) 8 SCC 220 . 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as per Condition No. 3 of appointment order dated 4.4.2007, the services of the petitioner, a Probationer Trainee, were liable to be terminated at any time by giving one month's notice in writing or by giving one month remuneration in lieu thereof and therefore, since the petitioner's services were found unsatisfactory, the order impugned passed terminating his services cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner extended help to Jalaram in committing the theft, the act of the petitioner falls within the definition of `misconduct' in terms of Regulation 28 (i) of the Regulations, 1976. Learned counsel would submit that mere mentioning of the act of misconduct committed by the petitioner in the order, it cannot be said that his services have been terminated on account of the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him. Learned counsel submitted that the act of misconduct does not form foundation of the order whereby the petitioner has been discharged from service. Learned counsel submits that the order of termination of the petitioner is simpliciter and cannot be treated to be punitive in nature. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dhananjay v. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalna, (2003) 2 SCC 386 . 10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. A bare perusal of the order impugned reveals that it makes specific reference of the petitioner's arrest by Dy. S.P. (Vigilance) AVVNL, Ajmer on 15.3.2008 in connection with the case registered against him under Sections 135, 136 and 150 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for his connivance with the consumer Jalaram in committing theft of electricity and he having remained under the judicial custody from 25.3.2008 to 26.3.2008. S.P. (Vigilance) AVVNL, Ajmer on 15.3.2008 in connection with the case registered against him under Sections 135, 136 and 150 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for his connivance with the consumer Jalaram in committing theft of electricity and he having remained under the judicial custody from 25.3.2008 to 26.3.2008. It further recites that in view of the terms and conditions of his appointment order, service of the petitioner is prima-facie unsatisfactory and is covered under the definition of `misconduct' as per Regulation 28 (i) of Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976 and accordingly, for the aforementioned reason, the petitioner's services have been terminated with immediate effect by the appointing authority in exercise of the power conferred under Regulations 1962 and in view of Condition No. 3 of his appointment order dated 4.4.07. Thus, it is manifestly clear that the petitioner's services have been brought to an end on account of his involvement in a criminal case registered under Section 135/136 and 150 of the Act of 2003, which according to the respondents falls within the definition of `misconduct' as per Regulation 28 (i) of the Regulations, 1976. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the appointing authority terminating the services of the petitioner is founded on the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him in terms of Regulation 28 (i) of the Regulations and therefore, it is an order punitive in nature. 12. It is settled law that like a temporary employee, a Probationer is also entitled to certain protections and his services cannot be terminated by passing an stigmatic order without a proper inquiry into the allegations of misconduct levelled and any such order passed without giving an opportunity to such employee shall be perse violative of the principles of natural justice. 13. In the matter of Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and ors. 13. In the matter of Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and ors. (1999) 3 SCC 60 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the issue as to in what circumstances termination of a probationer's services can be said to be founded on misconduct and in what circumstances could it be said that the allegations were only a motive, held that if findings were arrived at in an inquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental inquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as founded on allegations and will be bad. But if the inquiry was not held and no findings were arrived at and the employer was not inclined to conduct an inquiry, but at the same time, he did not want to continue the employee against whom there were complaints, it would only be a case of motive and order would not be bad. The Court observed that it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the language or words employed in the order of termination of the probationer to judge whether the word employed amount to a stigma or not. 14. In V.P. Ahuja's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon Dipti Prakash Banerjee's case supra) held that a probationer like a temporary servant is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily, nor can those services be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice. 15. In Narsingh Pal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if an order has been passed by way of punishment and was punitive in nature, it was the duty of the respondents to hold regular departmental inquiry and they could not have terminated the services arbitrarily by paying the employee the retrenchment compensation. 16. In Mahaveer Singhvi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the law already settled by earlier decisions observed that if a finding against a probationer is arrived at behind his back into the allegation made and the same formed foundation of order of discharge, the same would be bad and liable to be set aside. 17. 16. In Mahaveer Singhvi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the law already settled by earlier decisions observed that if a finding against a probationer is arrived at behind his back into the allegation made and the same formed foundation of order of discharge, the same would be bad and liable to be set aside. 17. In Dhananjay's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, where the employee was kept under suspension and the inquiry was contemplated, the Court observed that this fact by itself is not indicative that the employer had intended from beginning to get rid of the services of the employee by holding any inquiry and accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Court found that it is not possible to hold that the order of termination of services was not simpliciter or the misconduct was the foundation for passing such order. 18. In the backdrop of position of law settled by various decisions, it can be safely concluded that the nature of the termination order whether it is simpliciter or punitive as also whether the allegations referred to in the order forms foundation of the order or only motive has to be judged on the basis of the contents of the order and the facts and circumstances of the case. Indisputably, if the allegations constituting misconduct on the part of an employee is the foundation of the order, then the order shall be construed as stigmatic and punitive. As discussed above, in the instant case though it is mentioned in the order that the petitioner's services are unsatisfactory, but at the same time, the order has been passed treating the act of the petitioner in helping the consumer in theft of electricity as misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 28 (i) of the Regulation, 1976 and therefore, this Court is of considered view that the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is the foundation of the order and not merely a motive. 19. 19. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned which is stigmatic and punitive could not have been passed by the respondents without holding the regular inquiry into the charges of misconduct levelled against the petitioner after giving him an opportunity of hearing and therefore, the order terminating the services of the petitioner having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice deserves to be quashed. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 27.3.2008 is quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.Petition allowed.