HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13569 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Verma, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 11.06.2024 whereby contractual services of petitioner on the post of Law Assistant Probationary Officer have been dispensed with on the ground of serious allegations leveled against him. 3. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of impugned order will make it evident that a show cause notice was issued to him on 10.06.2024 and without giving appropriate time or opportunity to respond to the same, impugned order has been passed on very next day. It is submitted that even if petitioner's services are contractual in nature but since a stigma had been attached regarding dispensing his services, an opportunity of hearing was required to be given. It is submitted that impugned order has been passed ex parte on stigmatic ground. 4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 25.11.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and on that basis, submits that opportunity was granted to petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice which was in fact submitted and has been considered in the impugned order. It is therefore submitted Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Verma, Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sunil Singh Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) that there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident from impugned order itself that a show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 10.06.2024 and the impugned order had been passed on the very next date, apparently, on admission made by the petitioner. However, he has denied the aspect of any collusion with regard to allegations levelled against him. 6. From a bare perusal of the order impugned, it is quite evident that petitioner's services, though contractual, have been dispensed with on stigmatic ground without affording ample opportunity of hearing to him nor even considering the reply in its correct perspective. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, once allegations had been levelled against the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have provided reasonable time for petitioner to have responded to the same and to have substantiated the allegations levelled against him. Such a course of action having not been followed renders the impugned order vitiated. 8. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 11.06.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to conduct inquiry, afresh, after affording ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, with regard to allegations levelled against the petitioner. In case petitioner stands exonerated from the allegations levelled against him, opposite parties are directed to consider his case for renewal or extension of contract. 9. With the aforesaid, petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. November 28, 2025 lakshman WRIA No. 13569 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench