JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition making the following prayers:-- "(i) call for the record and examine; (ii) quash and set aside the impugned Award dated 9.3.99 Exhibit-13 and direct the respondent No. 1 to give finding on the charge levelled against the petitioner; (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; (iv) writ petition be allowed with costs." The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 16/01/1983 in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'RSRTC'). The petitioner was charged on 25/03/1983 with the allegation that five passengers were travelling without ticket in the bus when he was discharging the duties as a conductor. The petitioner filed a reply to the respondents' letter and informed them that the five passengers travelling without ticket were in-fact relatives of the driver of the bus Shri Niyas Mohammad and it was at his insistence that the petitioner had not issued tickets to the passengers concerned. Upon inspection of the bus on 25/03/1983, a report was prepared by the respondent authority recording the fact that the driver Shri Niyas Mohammad was in-fact not driving the bus on the fateful day and five passengers in the bus were found to be without ticket. 2. Learned Labour Court, while dealing with the order of termination, passed an award dt. 09/03/1999 in favour of respondent-corporation holding the termination to be lawful and proper. 3. The Dy Manager of RSRTC, Jhalawar had submitted his report dt. 05/07/1983 in which he had submitted that the bus was not being driven by Shri Niyas Mohammad and some other person was driving the bus. Similarly, the Assistant Traffic Inspector of the Flying Squad Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma also deposed that on 05/07/1983 the vehicle had five passengers without ticket and driver Shri Niyas Mohammad was not driving the vehicle. Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma clearly stated in his affidavit that the vehicle was not being driven by the driver concerned i.e., Shri Niyas Mohammad. The same story is corroborated by the Traffic Inspector Shri Ram Charan Meena in his affidavit. 4. Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma clearly stated in his affidavit that the vehicle was not being driven by the driver concerned i.e., Shri Niyas Mohammad. The same story is corroborated by the Traffic Inspector Shri Ram Charan Meena in his affidavit. 4. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Harijinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 192 , the relevant para Nos. 21 & 23 of which are as follows:-- "21. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty-bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to subserve the common good and also en-sure that the workers get their dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J. opined that: "10.....The concept of social and economic justice is a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of welfare State." 23. The Preamble and various articles contained in Part IV of the Constitution promote social justice so that life of every individual becomes meaningful and he is able to live with human dignity. The concept of social justice engrafted in the Constitution consists of diverse principles essentially for the orderly growth and development of personality of every citizen. Social justice is thus an integral part of justice in the generic sense. Justice is the genus, of which social justice is one of its species. Social justice is a dynamic devise to mitigate the sufferings of the poor, weak, Dalits, tribals and deprived sections of the society and to elevate them to the level of equality to live a life with dignity of person. Justice is the genus, of which social justice is one of its species. Social justice is a dynamic devise to mitigate the sufferings of the poor, weak, Dalits, tribals and deprived sections of the society and to elevate them to the level of equality to live a life with dignity of person. In other words, the aim of social justice is to attain substantial degree of social, economic and political equality, which is the legitimate expectation of every section of the society." 5. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Mehbub Alam Laskar, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 479 , the relevant para Nos. 21, 23 & 24 of which are as follows:-- "21. Reliance, however, is placed by Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh on Abhijit Gupta v. S.N.B. National Centre, Basic Sciences. The said decision has been taken into consideration in Jadeja stating (SCC p. 77, para 16) "16. If the satisfaction of the employer rested on the unsatisfactory performance on the part of the appellant, the matter might have been different, but in that case, from the impugned order it is evident that it was not the unsatisfactory nature and character of his performance only which was taken into consideration but series of his acts as well, misconduct on his part had also been taken into consideration therefor. It is one thing to say that he was found unsuitable for a job but it is another thing to say that he was said to have committed some misconduct." As in the instant case, it now stands admitted that the services of the respondent had been terminated on a finding of misconduct, the said decision of this Court in Abhijit Gupta has no application. 23. Therein, this Court noticed that the order of termination was the only motive and not the foundation therefor stating: (SCC pp. 721-22, para 10) "10........9 ..... The question whether the termination of service is simpliciter or punitive has been examined in several cases e.g., Dhananjay v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and Mathew P. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply Corpn. Ltd., An order of termination simpliciter passed during the period of probation has been generating undying debate. 721-22, para 10) "10........9 ..... The question whether the termination of service is simpliciter or punitive has been examined in several cases e.g., Dhananjay v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and Mathew P. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply Corpn. Ltd., An order of termination simpliciter passed during the period of probation has been generating undying debate. The recent two decisions of this Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose national Centre for Basic Sciences and Pavanendra Narayan Verma V. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences after survey of most of the earlier decisions touching the question observed as to when an order of termination can be treated as simpliciter and when it can be treated as punitive and when a stigma is said to be attached to an employee discharged during the period of probation. The learned counsel on either side referred to and relied on these decisions either in support of their respective contentions or to distinguish them for the purpose of application of the principles stated therein to the facts of the present case. In Dipti Prakash Banerjee after referring to various decisions it was indicated as to when a simple order of termination is to be treated as 'founded' on the allegations of misconduct and when complaints could be only as a motive for passing such a simple order of termination. In para 21 of the said judgment a distinction is explained thus: (SCC pp. 71-72) "21. If findings were arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as founded on the allegations and will be bad. But if the enquiry was not held, no findings were arrived at and the employer was not inclined to conduct an enquiry 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 the order would not be bad. Similar is the position if the employer did not want to enquire into the truth of the allegations because of delay in regular departmental proceedings or he was doubtful about securing adequate evidence. Similar is the position if the employer did not want to enquire into the truth of the allegations because of delay in regular departmental proceedings or he was doubtful about securing adequate evidence. In such a circumstance, the allegations would be a motive and not the foundation and the simple order of termination would be valid." (emphasis in original) From a long line of decisions it appears to us that whether an order of termination is simpliciter or punitive has ultimately to be decided having due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Many a times the distinction between the foundation and motive in relation to an order of termination either is thin or overlapping. It may be difficult either to categorise or classify strictly orders of termination"6 simpliciter falling in one or the other category, based on misconduct as foundation for passing the order of termination simpliciter or on motive on the ground of unsuitability to continue in service." 24. The respondent evidently, was not aware that his services had been terminated on a finding of misconduct or the fact that an enquiry had been conducted by the appellant behind his back. He pleaded bona fide in his action. It was not an admission on his part in regard to the imputation of misconduct." 6. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Hari Ram Maurya v. Union of India and other, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 167 whereby it was held that the services of a temporary employee cannot be terminated on charge of bribery without holding an enquiry and thereafter acting in accordance with law. 7. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of O.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., reported in (1993) 3 SCC 259 , the relevant para Nos. 8, 9, 12, 13 and 15 of which are as follows:-- "8. The cardinal point that has to be borne in mind, in every case, is whether the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially. It is not so much to act judicially but is to act fairly, namely' the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. It is not so much to act judicially but is to act fairly, namely' the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. In other words application of the principles of natural justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority to act arbitrarily effecting the rights of the concerned person." 8. It is a fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which will affect the right of any person without first being informed of the case and be given him/her an opportunity of putting forward his/her case. An order involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner the Constitution Bench held that 'civil consequence' covers infraction of not merely property or personal right but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 1487 defined civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country.... they include.... rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action..... State of Orissa v. (Miss) Binapani Dei, this court held that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. The person concerned must be informed of the case, the evidence in support thereof supplied and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. Since no such opportunity was given it was held that superannuation was in violation of principles of natural justice. 9. Therefore, fair play in action requires that the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable. The manner of exercise of the power and its impact on the rights of the person affected would be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Art. 21 clubs life with liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence. When it is interpreted that the colour and content of procedure established by law must be in conformity with the minimum fairness and processual justice, it would relieve legislative callousness despising opportunity of being heard and fair opportunities of defence. When it is interpreted that the colour and content of procedure established by law must be in conformity with the minimum fairness and processual justice, it would relieve legislative callousness despising opportunity of being heard and fair opportunities of defence. Art. 14 has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and allergic to discriminatory dictates. Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness. It is, thereby, conclusively held by this Court that the principles of natural justice are part of Art. 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable. 10. In Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Ors., this court held that right to public employment and its concomitant right to livelihood received protective umbrella under the can copy of Arts. 14 and 21 etc. All matters relating to employment includes the right to continue in service till the employee reaches superannuation or until his service is duly terminated in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure prescribed under the pro-visions of the constitution and the rules made under the provisions of the constitution and the rules made under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution or the statutory provisions or the rules, regulations or instructions having statutory flavour. They must be conformable to the rights guaranteed in Part III and IV of the Constitution. Art. 21 guarantees right to life which includes right to livelihood, the deprivation thereof must be in accordance with just and fair procedure prescribed by law conformable to Arts. 14 and 21 so as to be just, fair and reasonable and not fanciful, oppressive or at vagary. The principles of natural justice is an integral part of the Guarantee of equality assured by Art. 14 Any law made or action taken by an employer must be fair, just and reasonable. The power to terminate the service of an employee/workman in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure is an essential in built of natural justice. Arts. 14 strikes at arbitrary action. It is not the form of the action but the substance of the order that is to be looked into. It is open to the court to lift the veil and gauge the effect of the impugned action to find whether it is the foundation to impose punishment or is only a motive. Fair play is to secure justice, procedural as well as substantive. It is open to the court to lift the veil and gauge the effect of the impugned action to find whether it is the foundation to impose punishment or is only a motive. Fair play is to secure justice, procedural as well as substantive. The substance of the order is the soul and the affect thereof is the end result. 11. In this case admittedly no opportunity was given to the appellant and no enquiry was held. The appellant's plea put forth at the earliest was that despite his reporting to duty on December 3, 1980 and on all subsequent days and readiness to join duty he was prevented to report to duty, nor he be permitted to sign the attendance register. The Tribunal did not record any conclusive finding in this behalf. It concluded that the management had power under Clause 13 of the Certified Standing Orders to terminate with the service of the appellant. Therefore, we hold that the principles of natural justice must be read into the standing order No. 13(2)(iv). Otherwise it would become arbitrary unjust and unfair violating Article 14. When so read the impugned action is violative of the principles of natural justice." 12. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner was basically trying to establish that in the case of a temporary employee also, a proper enquiry has to be conducted if his services are to be terminated on account of some kind of allegation. 13. After perusing the record alongwith the precedent law and the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Labour Court, while passing the award, has held in Para No. 8 that the enquiry will not be necessary in light of the fact that the order of termination passed by the respondents was termination simplicitor. The order (Exhibit-5), in which the details of corruption committed by the petitioner are given and thereby his services have been terminated on the ground of being unsatisfactory, can by no stretch of imagination, be termed as termination simplicitor. The record and the orders passed are stigmatic to the petitioner and this Court holds that the termination could not have been passed without holding a proper enquiry and without giving the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing. 14. The record and the orders passed are stigmatic to the petitioner and this Court holds that the termination could not have been passed without holding a proper enquiry and without giving the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing. 14. In the light of the aforementioned facts, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that the termination order was not a removal simplicitor but is an stigmatic order which has been passed unlawfully without holding a proper enquiry. However looking to the fact that the petitioner has rendered very short service from 16/01/1983 to 25/03/1983, therefore, I deem it appropriate not to grant reinstatement to the petitioner but in lieu of reinstatement, the petitioner shall be entitled for a compensation of Rs. One Lakh with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order award dated 09/03/1999 is set aside and the respondents are directed to make payment of Rs. One Lakh to the petitioner as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition within a period of three months of the certified copy of this order is served in their office. No order as to costs.