JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 23.05.2016 by which pursuant to a decision of Executive Committee of the Netarhat Vidyalya Samiti, he has been terminated from service. 2. Main plea raised by Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of an ex-parte enquiry the petitioner cannot be terminated from service. By filing a counter-affidavit the respondents have supported the impugned order of termination dated 23.05.2016 primarily taking a plea that no show-cause notice was required to be given because the petitioner was a probationer whose services can be dispensed with without a show-cause notice. Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the respondents submits that extension of service of the petitioner granted by the Executive Committee was conditional and when it was observed that his performance was not satisfactory, in terms of Rule 12(b) of Netarhat Vidyalya Samiti's Recruitment, Service Conditions and Disciplinary Rules, 2011, his services were dispensed with. 3. The petitioner, pursuant to Advertisement No. 1 of 2012 by which applications for appointment of teachers, councellor, administrative officer and medical officer were invited, was appointed on the post of Administrative Officer. After appointment letter dated 15.03.2013 was issued to him he tendered his joining on the post of Administrative Officer on 26.03.2013 and by an order dated 30.03.2015 the period of probation was extended. Stand taken by the petitioner is that under the extant rules period of probation is for one year and there is no provision for extension for the period of probation. The petitioner has asserted that self-appraisal report submitted by him on 27.02.2015 was forwarded to the Principal of the school who gave remarks “excellent with Grade-A” to him, however, it was reduced by the Chairman of the Executive Committee to Grade-D. It appears that performance of the petitioner was discussed by the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 16.05.2016 and a decision was taken to terminate the petitioner's service. 4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.05.2016 would disclose that there is allegation against the petitioner of not following the directions of the Executive Committee and on a complaint by a subordinate an enquiry was conducted in which the allegation of misbehavior by the petitioner has been found correct. 4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.05.2016 would disclose that there is allegation against the petitioner of not following the directions of the Executive Committee and on a complaint by a subordinate an enquiry was conducted in which the allegation of misbehavior by the petitioner has been found correct. It is an admitted position that neither a copy of the alleged complaint by the subordinate was given to the petitioner nor a show-cause notice was issued to him. It is also not in dispute that a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner and he was not afforded an opportunity to place his defence against the adverse findings recorded in the enquiry report. An order, executive, judicial or quasi-judicial, which affects a person and visits him with civil and/or evil consequences must be in consonance with the established rules of natural justice. In “Canara Bank & Ors. vs. Debasis Das & Ors.” reported in (2003) 4 SCC 557 , the Supreme Court has observed thus,- “15. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled ……….. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play.” 5. On the question whether the termination order is stigmatic or not, though there are various judgments on the issue reference to the judgment in “Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar and Ors.” reported in AIR 2016 SC 467 , on which Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, would be the most appropriate. It has been held by the Supreme Court that if the allegation of misconduct/misdemeanour constitutes the basis for the final decision of the competent authority to dispense with services of a probationer, such order cannot be sustained in law. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, would be the most appropriate. It has been held by the Supreme Court that if the allegation of misconduct/misdemeanour constitutes the basis for the final decision of the competent authority to dispense with services of a probationer, such order cannot be sustained in law. In the said case the Supreme Court has observed as under :- “But in cases where the termination is preceded by an enquiry and evidence is received and findings as to misconduct of a definitive nature are arrived at behind the back of the officer and where on the basis of such a report, the termination order is issued, such an order will be violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the purpose of the enquiry is to find out the truth of the allegations with a view to punish him and not merely to gather evidence for a future regular departmental enquiry. In such cases, the termination is to be treated as based or founded upon misconduct and will be punitive. These are obviously not cases where the employer feels that there is a mere cloud against the employee's conduct but are cases where the employer has virtually accepted the definitive and clear findings of the enquiry officer, which are all arrived at behind the back of the employee – even though such acceptance of findings is not recorded in the order of termination. That is why the misconduct is the foundation and not merely the motive in such cases.” 6. Considering the law on the subject, in view of the admitted fact, that no opportunity to defend him was afforded to the petitioner and the finding of misconduct recorded in the ex-parte enquiry against the petitioner has formed foundation for the order of termination from service, the impugned order dated 23.05.2016 is found unsustainable in law and accordingly it is quashed. 7. The writ petition is allowed, however, the respondents may proceed further in the matter by issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner and affording him sufficient opportunity to defend himself.