JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Ms N Saikia, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Indian Red Cross Society (hereinafter referred to as “the IRCS”) and their functionaries are represented by Mr. S P Choudhury, the learned Counsel. 2. The challenge here is to the order dated 16.6.2011 (Annexure-9), whereby, the service of the petitioner was terminated by the Honorary Secretary of the IRCS, Karimganj District Branch. The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant on 10.1.1995 (Annexure-1) and till he was removed he was employed with the IRCS for around 16 years. 3. The disciplinary action against the Office Assistant was initiated through the show-cause-notice of 2.4.2011 (Annexure-5), where the employer alleged that the petitioner is habitually late in arriving at office and that he did not sign the attendance register on the dates mentioned in the notice. Unauthorized absence for 4 days, was also alleged against the Office Assistant. 4. In his response to the show-cause-notice, the delinquent mentioned about his multifarious duties and stated that he is attending to his work in the maternity hospital operated by the IRCS at Karimganj, with utmost devotion and sincerity. The irregular maintenance of attendance register by the employer and the shifting of the attendance register to the Secretary’s room on the concerned dates, was cited as the reason for the failure to sign the attendance register, on a few dates. The absence from 28.3.2011 – 31.3.2011 was stated to be on account of sudden and unavoidable personal exigencies and the verbal intimation given about the absence, to the Sr. Office Assistant on 27.3.2011 itself. 5. The IRCS authorities then constituted a five Member Inquiry Committee on 18.5.2011 (Annexure-7) but the delinquent opposed the constitution of the Committee on the ground that none of the members are neutral as they are all intrinsically connected with the IRCS and hence fair inquiry is not possible. 6. Following the constitution of the Committee on 18.5.2011, a month later on 16.6.2011, the impugned termination order was issued where it was stated that the Managing Committee of the IRCS in their meeting on 13.6.2011 had considered the charges and the inquiry report and have unanimously decided to terminate the service of the Office Assistant. Thus the impugned order was basically the intimation of the resolution adopted by the Managing Committee, on 13.6.2011. 7.1 Assailing the legality of the termination order, Ms. Thus the impugned order was basically the intimation of the resolution adopted by the Managing Committee, on 13.6.2011. 7.1 Assailing the legality of the termination order, Ms. N Saikia, the learned Counsel submits that neither any formal charge were formulated nor any domestic enquiry was conducted with the participation of the delinquent and therefore, the legality of the decision taken by the IRCS is questioned by the petitioner. Ms. Saikia submits that a fair inquiry should have been conducted to determine the veracity of the charges. But in the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority while referring to the Inquiry Report, has failed to furnish or produce any such Inquiry Report, even before the Court. 7.2 The petitioner questions the merit of the allegation levelled in the show-cause-notice dated 2.4.2011 and submits that adequate explanation for the condonable and minor lapses were given in the delinquent’s reply furnished on 22.4.2011 (Annexure-6) and accordingly the petitioner argues that the matter should have been closed at that stage and there is no justification for terminating the service on the alleged ground of negligence of duty and defiance of the authorities. 7.3 The alternate submission is also made by the learned advocate by questioning the proportionality of the penalty by referring to the minor breaches and the major consequence of service termination, for the delinquent. 8.1 On the other hand, the learned Counsel Mr. S P Choudhury for the respondents refers to the appointment order dated 10.1.1995 (Annexure-1) to contend that the appointment was temporary and his service may be terminated at any time by the authorities and accordingly it is argued that when the petitioner is found to be irregular and is a habitual latecomer, the employer is within their right to terminate the service of such errant employee. 8.2 On the issue of conducting of the domestic enquiry, Mr. Choudhury submits that when the Inquiry Committee was constituted on 18.5.2011, the delinquent questioned the impartiality of the Inquiry Committee Members and therefore, it is submitted that the domestic inquiry could not be conducted formally, due to want of cooperation from the delinquent’s side. 8.3 Mr. Choudhury submits that the IRCS is a charitable organization and it operates the hospital at Karimganj on no profit and no loss basis and therefore the employees are expected to serve with greater dedication and commitment. 9. 8.3 Mr. Choudhury submits that the IRCS is a charitable organization and it operates the hospital at Karimganj on no profit and no loss basis and therefore the employees are expected to serve with greater dedication and commitment. 9. The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant to work in the maternity hospital run by the IRCS at Karimganj and the case records reflect that the pressure of work was acute in the hospital and the Office Assistant had to discharge multifarious responsibilities. Because of the very nature of the work in the hospital, the employees had to serve extended hours but they were not paid any overtime wages. Therefore, some flexibility on the duty hours of the staff in the Red Cross Hospital was inevitable. 10. Be that as it may, when it is alleged that the petitioner is habituated to late arrival and it is alleged that the employee was absent for 4 days without authorization, it was necessary for the employer to arrange for a domestic inquiry to verify the veracity of the charges. This would have provided the delinquent with an opportunity of put forward his defence. But although reference to a purported inquiry report is made in the termination order, no such inquiry report was ever furnished to the delinquent nor a copy thereof is produced before the Court. In such circumstances, it can be logically inferred that the respondents did not conduct any inquiry into the allegation and thus the delinquent was denied of the opportunity to rebut the charges, in a formal proceeding. 11. When termination of an employee becomes necessary for the misconduct committed by him, the employer is duty bound in law to arrange for a departmental inquiry in order to verify the allegation and also provide the delinquent an opportunity to rebut the charges. But this was not done and it appears to the Court that the termination of the Office Assistant was ordered without affording a fair opportunity to the affected employee. 12. Because of the above conclusion, the impugned termination order (Annexure-9) is declared to be unsustainable in law and the same is quashed. The respondents are accordingly directed to reinstate the employee. However considering the non-profit making character of the Red Cross Hospital and service not received from the terminated employee, upon reinstatement 25% back wages is ordered to be paid to the employee. The respondents are accordingly directed to reinstate the employee. However considering the non-profit making character of the Red Cross Hospital and service not received from the terminated employee, upon reinstatement 25% back wages is ordered to be paid to the employee. It is ordered accordingly. 13. With the above direction, the case stands allowed in the manner indicated by leaving the parties to bear their respective cost.