ORDER : 1. The petitioner, who was serving as an Accountant with the Town Municipal Council, Badami, has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent, vide Annexure-A, terminating her services and consequently to reinstate the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an Accountant on temporary basis by the 2nd respondent-Town Municipal Council vide appointment order dated 03.10.2008. There afterwards, the petitioner was continuously serving in the 2nd respondent without there being any interruption. The petitioner, along with other similarly situated employees had approached this Court in W.P. No. 103135/2016 and connected writ petitions seeking regularization of her service and the said writ petitions was disposed of by this Court on 20.02.2017 directing the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioners therein for regularization and till such consideration, the services of the petitioners was directed not to be disturbed. There afterwards, the petitioner received a show cause notice alleging that the petitioner had remained absent and her absence had caused hindrance to various projects of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner on receipt of the show cause notice dated 04.05.2018 vide Annexure-C, has given a reply to the same on 13.06.2018 vide Annexure-D. There afterwards, the 3rd respondent without holding any enquiry has terminated the services of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not absented herself as alleged in the show cause notice. He submits that only after this Court had disposed of petitioner’s writ petition seeking regularisaton of service, the present action has been taken to terminate the services of the petitioner. He submits that the present action is a camouflage and the only intention of the 2nd respondent was to terminate the services of the petitioner. He submits that though a reply was given to the show cause notice, the same has not been considered and no enquiry has been held prior to passing of the order impugned. He submits that in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner even the period of absenteeism has not been mentioned and in spite of all these defects, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order impugned terminating the services of the petitioner. He submits that in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner even the period of absenteeism has not been mentioned and in spite of all these defects, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order impugned terminating the services of the petitioner. He submits that the order impugned is not a termination simplicitor and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner could not have passed an order without holding any enquiry. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 3 and Sri Prakash Hosamane, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 argued in support of the impugned order contending that even if the reply given by the petitioner is perused, there is no satisfactory explanation for her absenteeism. They also submit that since the petitioner’s appointment was on contract basis, no enquiry is required to be held for terminating her services as the order impugned is nothing but a termination simplicitor and it will not carry any stigma on the petitioner. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material on record. 6. The petitioner, admittedly, was appointed as an Accountant on temporary basis by the 2nd respondent on 03.10.2008. The petitioner has been continuously serving in the 2nd respondent and she had also made representations to regularize her services and there afterwards she had approached this Court along with other similarly situated employees in W.P. No. 103135/2016 and other connected writ petitions and this Court disposed of the said writ petitions vide order dated 20.02.2017 directing the competent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners therein for regularization of their services and it was also observed by this Court that till such consideration, the services of the petitioners should not be disturbed. There afterwards, the petitioner has received the show cause notice alleging that she was unauthorisedly absent for her duty. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 04.05.2018, which is available at Annexure-C would go to show that in the said show cause notice, the 3rd respondent has not stated the period of absenteeism by the petitioner. There afterwards, the petitioner has received the show cause notice alleging that she was unauthorisedly absent for her duty. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 04.05.2018, which is available at Annexure-C would go to show that in the said show cause notice, the 3rd respondent has not stated the period of absenteeism by the petitioner. Material on record would also go to show that the petitioner has given a reply to the said show cause notice denying the allegations in the show cause notice and, in fact, she has even taken a contention that she has through out attended duty diligently. In spite of such a reply given by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner has not held any enquiry prior to passing the order impugned terminating the services of the petitioner. A perusal of the termination order would go to show that even in the said order the period of unauthorized absence alleged against the petitioner is not mentioned. However, though a reference is made to the reply statement given by the petitioner, the contents of such a reply have not been reproduced or appreciated. The Deputy Commissioner appears to have passed the order impugned solely on the basis of a report which is submitted by the Chief Officer of the 2nd respondent. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was heard by the Chief Officer of the 2nd respondent before submitting such a report to the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner has contended before this Court that the order of termination has been passed after this Court had directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and till such consideration not to disturb the services of the petitioner. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anoop Jaiswal vs. Government of India, has held that “where the form of the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct it is always open to the court before which the order is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anoop Jaiswal vs. Government of India, has held that “where the form of the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct it is always open to the court before which the order is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order. If the court holds that the order though in the form is merely a determination of employment is in reality a cloak for an order of punishment, the court would not be debarred, merely because of the form of the order, in giving effect to the rights conferred by law upon the employees.” 8. Similarly in Nelap Singh vs. State of U.P. (1985) 1 SCC 56 , it has been held that, “where allegations of misconduct are leveled against a government servant, and it is a case where the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution should be applied, it is not open to the competent authority to take the view that holding the enquiry contemplated by that clause would be a bother or a nuisance and that therefore it is entitled to avoid the mandate of that provision and resort to the guise of an ex facie innocuous termination order. The court will view with great disfavour any attempt to circumvent the constitutional provision of Article 311(2) in a case where that provision comes into play.” 9. Referring to the above two decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Goel vs. Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Another, (1991) 3 SCC 291 has held that “...it is well settled that, in a case of an order of termination even that of a temporary employee the court has to see whether the order was made on the ground of misconduct if such a complaint was made and in that process the court would examine the real circumstances was well as the basis and foundation of the order complained of and if the court is satisfied that the termination of services is not so innocuous as claimed to be and if the circumstances further disclose that it is only a camouflage with a view to avoid an enquiry as warranted by Article 311(2) of the Constitution, then such a termination is liable to be quashed.” 10. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 103472/1991, disposed of on 18.10.2019, in almost identical circumstances, after referring to the above judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has observed in Para 6 as follows: “6. In the light of the above said decisions, when we look at the show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, it is clear that the allegations of serious misconduct was made against the petitioner. The petitioner has given a reply to the said show case notice denying the allegations made against the petitioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner proceeds to pass the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner, without conducting a disciplinary enquiry and offering an opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. What is noticeable is that, even in the preamble of the impugned order of termination, the very same allegations as was made in the show cause notice has been reiterated. Therefore, it is quite evident that, the order of termination is not a simplicitor order of termination, but an order of punishment which leaves a stigma on the petitioner.” 11. Having regard to the above referred pronouncements, I am of the considered view that the order impugned passed by the Deputy Commissioner without holding an enquiry and without properly considering the reply given by the petitioner to the show-cause notice is unsustainable and accordingly the same is liable to be quashed. 12. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 27.07.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-A is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and 50% back wages.