Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The petitioner, by this petition, has challenged the order dated 8.1.2008 – Annexure – L, whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated and he has been called upon to pay the amount of Rs. 4,60,000/-. The petitioner has also consequently prayed for reinstatement in service. 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Vidhya Sahayak in Jamnagar District on 30.4.2004 and the petitioner thereafter joined the duty on 12.6.2004 at Chokhanda Primary School, Taluka Bhanvad, District Jamnagar. On 28.11.2004, the then Head Teacher of the School, Shri Dadhaniya Kaushikkumar Keshavlal was transferred to other School and, therefore, the petitioner was given charge of Head Teacher. On 24.8.2007, a criminal conspiracy was hatched, whereby two cheques were stolen from the chequebook and the bearer cheque of Rs.4,60,000/- was drawn in the name of Ramanlal Prajapati and forged signature of the petitioner was made over the said cheque. When the petitioner came to know about the same, the petitioner filed complaint on 18.9.2007 vide I- C.R. No. 50/2007 with Bhanvad Police Station and Bhanvad Police Station undertook the investigation of the matter. When the investigation was on, without giving any opportunity of hearing, the impugned order came to be passed on 8.1.2008 by the respondents, whereby the services of the petitioner as Vidhya Sahayak was terminated and he was called upon to pay the amount of Rs. 4,60,000/-, which was the subject of the aforesaid offence. It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr. Pujara, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Hathi, learned Counsel for the respondent. 4. It may be recorded that pending the petition, Civil Application No. 1092 of 2008 was preferred for interim relief and this Court had granted interim relief, whereby the operation of the order for termination was stayed and the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to discharge the duty and draw the salary and on account of the said interim relief, the petitioner is working as on today. 5. The perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-L shows that there is no reference whatsoever to any inquiry held by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. The perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-L shows that there is no reference whatsoever to any inquiry held by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, the impugned order is not for a termination of services simplicitor, since the petitioner was working as Vidhya Sahayak, but is an order for dismissal from service and with the further direction to deposit the amount of Rs. 4,60,000/-. If the dismissal from service was to be effected, such, in any case, could not be done without holding departmental inquiry and further, if the recovery was to be effected of Rs. 4,60,000/-, the same also could not be ordered without giving opportunity of hearing and of leading evidence by the parties concerned. As neither has happened in the present case and straightaway, the order of dismissal and recovery of Rs. 4,60,000/- has been passed, it can be said that the order is in breach of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. At this stage, it may also be recorded that the complaint filed by the petitioner with the police was investigated and it has been found in the investigation that the signatures were forged and one Mahendrasinh, who was accused, had committed offence and the charge-sheet is also filed by the police before appropriate Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid, it appears to me that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Hence, the same is quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.