ORDER : R.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. The petitioner, Mr. A.S. Basavaraju, has challenged the termination order dated 11.06.2015, whereby the Executive Engineer (Ele), CESCOM, has dismissed the petitioner from service. Briefly the fact of the case are that on 30.07.1998, the petitioner joined the Karnataka Electricity Board ("the Board", for short) as the Probationary Mazdoor. Subsequently, he was absorbed as an Assistant Lineman with the Board. Due to his hard work, and his leadership quality, he joined the trade union in order to represent the interest of the workmen. However, due to his trade union activities, he had also created certain enemies within the establishment. Consequently, a fictitious complaint in the name of one Mr. Siddaraju was filed, wherein the complainant claimed that the transfer certificate of the 7th Class submitted by the petitioner was a forged document. The Executive Engineer, the respondent No. 3, forwarded the Transfer Certificate to the Head Master of Higher Primary School, Gangur, Arakalgud Taluk, in order to find out the veracity and authenticity of the said transfer certificate. The Head Master informed the Executive Engineer that no such student ever studied in the school. Having received the said communication, a charge-sheet was furnished to the petitioner with regard to the alleged forged transfer certificate. The petitioner replied to the same. However, as the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the reply, it appointed the Assistant Executive Engineer as the Enquiry Officer. During the course of the enquiry, Mr. Siddaraju was examined as a witness but he denied having complaint against the petitioner. It was also brought on record that the petitioner had actually studied in the 7th Class at the Government Higher Primary Boys School, located on Pete Road, Arakalgud Town, and not at the Gangur Higher Primary School. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer opined that the department has failed to establish that the petitioner had submitted a forged transfer certificate. However, the enquiry officer did notice the fact that in the transfer certificate, the petitioner's date of birth has been shown as 16.04.1967, whereas, in the marks sheet of the SSLC, the petitioner's date of birth has been shown as 16.11.1973. Therefore, two contradictory date of births have been shown for the petitioner. 2. While accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority issued second show-cause notice to the petitioner. Therefore, two contradictory date of births have been shown for the petitioner. 2. While accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority issued second show-cause notice to the petitioner. In the second show-cause notice, the petitioner was asked to explain the contradiction in the date of birth. While replying to the second show-cause notice, the petitioner pointed out that the enquiry officer has travelled beyond the scope of enquiry as charge was framed against him with regard to the contradiction in the date of birth. But, notwithstanding the reply submitted, by order dated 11.06.2015, the petitioner's services were terminated. Hence, the present petition before this court. 3. Mr. V.R. Sarathy, the learned counsel for petitioner has pleaded that the petitioner was never charge-sheeted with regard to contradiction in the date of birth. Yet, the petitioner's services have been terminated. Thus, the petitioner's services have been terminated on an allegation for which he was never even charge-sheeted by the respondent. Secondly, the petitioner's services cannot be terminated on the basis of a charge which was never even framed. For such an action tantamounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the termination order deserves to be set aside by this court. 4. Mr. Sriranga, the learned counsel for the respondent, has frankly conceded, and in the opinion of this court rightly so, that the petitioner's services have been terminated on the basis of allegations which was not part of the charge-sheet. However, he has prayed that liberty should be granted to the respondent to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner on the point that the document submitted by him reveal two different contradictory date of birth. Thus, the date of birth recorded in the service record is untenable. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Needless to say, an employee's services can be terminated only on the basis of allegations made against him. An employee's services cannot be terminated on the basis of allegations which were never brought to his notice. For, before the employee's civil rights, or fundamental rights are adversely affected by the employer, the principles of natural justice have to be followed by the employer. Admittedly in the present case, the petitioner was never charged with regard to his furnishing two different and contradictory date of births. The petitioner was charged for having submitted a forged transfer certificate of a school. Admittedly in the present case, the petitioner was never charged with regard to his furnishing two different and contradictory date of births. The petitioner was charged for having submitted a forged transfer certificate of a school. However, the enquiry officer has given a finding that the complainant Mr. Siddaraju has denied having filed the complaint. Moreover, the petitioner had studied in another school in the same village. But the petitioners services have been terminated ostensibly on the ground that petitioner has submitted two different and contradictory date of births. Therefore, the termination order dated 11.6.2015, is legally unsustainable. 7. For the reasons stated above, this petition is hereby allowed. The termination order dated 11.06.2015, is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post which he was occupying prior to termination order, but without continuity of service, without consequential benefits, and without back wages. The respondents are granted liberty to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner with regard to alleged contradiction in his date of birth. With these directions, the petition is hereby allowed. No order as to costs.