JUDGMENT : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. I.A. No. 11099 of 2023 1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and there being no opposition by the respondent to the grounds shown, I.A. No.11099 of 2023 is allowed and the delay of 224 days in filing the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 690 of 2023 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dt. 27 th of March 2023 in W.P. (S) No. 906 of 2021 of the learned Single Judge. 3. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent challenging an Office Order No.02/2021 contained in Memo No.92 dt. 22.01.2021 issued under the signature of appellant No.3, whereunder the services of the respondent, though on contractual basis, have been terminated. 4. The respondent was working on a consolidated pay on the post of Computer Operator in the District Rural Development Authority, Godda from 2008. 5. Subsequently, he along with another was appointed on the post of Computer Operator on honorarium basis in a meeting dt. 03.01.2009 held under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Rural Development Authority, Godda. 6. While so, through a Memo No.910 dt. 19.09.2020, the respondent was placed under suspension and the following three charges were levelled against him by the appellants: “1. That he had demanded Rs.1.50 Lakh; 2.He had abused and used unparliamentary language including insinuation of caste, and 3. That, he had threatened of lodging an F.I.R. for committing forgery.” 7. A Charge Memo was issued containing these charges and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. 8. The respondent denied the charges levelled against him in the charge memo. 9. Thereafter, an enquiry report was prepared and the same was issued to the respondent along with a letter dt. 06.11.2020 asking him to file his explanation to the findings mentioned in the enquiry report. 10. The letter dt. 06.11.2020 did not make any mention about the findings of the enquiry committee as regards Charge No.1. As regards Charge No.2, though the letter stated that the respondent was found guilty, a perusal of the enquiry report indicates that he was not found guilty even with regard to Charge No.2. As regards Charge No.3, which dealt with a threat allegedly made by the respondent of lodging a false F.I.R. of committing forgery, the finding was that he obtained certain signatures of some persons, which was not the charge. 11. As regards Charge No.3, which dealt with a threat allegedly made by the respondent of lodging a false F.I.R. of committing forgery, the finding was that he obtained certain signatures of some persons, which was not the charge. 11. However, the said enquiry report mentioned some new charges which had not been put to the respondent at all, i.e., with regard to installation of dustbin of his company. Thus, there was a violation of principles of natural justice. 12. The learned Single Judge, therefore, came to the conclusion that the office order dt. 22.01.2021 terminating the services of the respondent cannot be sustained. 13. Though counsel for the appellants sought to contend that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous, the appellants were not able to show that any of the charges were found proved against the respondent in the enquiry conducted against him. They cannot also sustain the order of termination on the basis of a charge which is not informed to the respondent. 14. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. 15. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.