JUDGMENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents, at length. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari to quash the Letter as contained in Memo No.56 dated 13.02.2020, whereby the petitioner was stopped from working as Junior Engineer and was asked to show cause as to why not his contract be terminated. 2.1. The petitioner has further prayed to quash the Memo No.110 dated 23.03.2020, whereby the contractual service of the petitioner was terminated. 2.2. The petitioner has also prayed for mandamus upon the respondents to reinstate the services of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that in utter violation of principles of natural justice, the service contract of the petitioner was terminated. He admits that though the petitioner is a contractual employee, yet principles of natural justice have to be followed, as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is his contention that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is vague and omnibus and the same cannot be a ground to terminate the services of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondent – State submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender, as there are two criminal cases pending against the petitioner, which are of defalcation. He submits that it was found that the petitioner has defalcated funds of MGNREGA and thus after following the procedure of law and giving opportunity to the petitioner, his contract of service was terminated. He submits that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, as a detailed show cause notice was issued, to which the petitioner replied. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner is a contractual appointee. He was appointed as a Junior Engineer on 07.08.2012 on contractual basis. By the impugned letter dated 13.02.2020, the petitioner was stopped from performing his duty and he was show caused as to why not his service contract be terminated on the basis of the allegation made against him. 6. The allegation against the petitioner is of defalcation. It has been alleged in the letter dated 13.02.2020 that the petitioner has defalcated a sum of Rs.73,53,312/-, from the Department, by preparing a duplicate voucher of Shri Vikas Saha. 6. The allegation against the petitioner is of defalcation. It has been alleged in the letter dated 13.02.2020 that the petitioner has defalcated a sum of Rs.73,53,312/-, from the Department, by preparing a duplicate voucher of Shri Vikas Saha. Further, when Shri Saha asked for the balance of Rs.49,58,006/-, for the material supplied by him, the petitioner threatened him and denied to make any payment. 7. From Annexure-4, which is one of the impugned letters, it is clear that the details of misconduct were brought to the notice of the petitioner. Further, from the aforesaid notice, I find that there are two criminal cases pending against the petitioner. One is Hiranpur P.S. Case No.09/2018 and another is Hiranpur P.S. Case No.04/2020. It has also been brought to the notice that when Hiranpur P.S. Case No.09/2018, for defalcation was instituted against the petitioner, on the request of the petitioner and taking sympathetic view, after obtaining a bond from the petitioner that he will work properly, he was reinstated. It is also clear that after the petitioner was reinstated, he again started defalcating and misutilizing the funds, for which Hiranpur P.S. Case No.04/2020 was instituted. This impugned letter dated 13.02.2020 is in fact the notice to show cause to the petitioner as to why not his service be terminated. 8. After receiving the said notice, the petitioner gave a detailed reply. The reply of the petitioner was considered by the Committee comprising of Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, Deputy Development Commissioner, Pakur, Director, Accounts, Executive Magistrate, Pakur and Executive Engineer, Pakur. The Committee found the allegation against the petitioner to be correct. Thereafter, the second impugned order dated 23.03.2020 was issued terminating the service contract of the petitioner. 9. It is well settled that even to remove the contractual employee, principle of natural justice has to be followed. Either a departmental proceeding is to be initiated or opportunity of hearing should be given while issuing a show cause notice. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs Brijesh Kumar & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2282 , (para-19), held as follows :- “ 19. The services of the respondent have been determined solely on the ground of misconduct as alleged but without holding any regular inquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2282 , (para-19), held as follows :- “ 19. The services of the respondent have been determined solely on the ground of misconduct as alleged but without holding any regular inquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The termination order has been passed on the basis of some report which probably was not even supplied to the respondent. No show cause notice appears to have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of termination of his services, even if on contractual basis, has been passed on account of alleged misconduct without following the Principles of Natural Justice. The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice.” 11. In this case, notice to show cause was given to the petitioner, to which the petitioner replied and his reply was considered and thereafter the impugned order was passed. 12. It is a fact that there are two criminal cases of defalcation against the petitioner. These cases relate directly with his work in MGNREGA. It is also a fact that the petitioner had earlier given an undertaking that he will work properly but admittedly he failed to do so as the second F.I.R. was registered for defalcation. The allegation against the petitioner is serious, which is also found to be proved. The petitioner is a contractual employee; thus his contract was terminated after giving opportunity of hearing. 13. Considering what has been observed above, since the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing and the misconduct of the petitioner was proved, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.