JUDGMENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) For quashing/setting, with all consequences, the decision, of terminating/cancelling the petitioner's contractual service treating her disqualified, as contained in the office order contained in memo no.139 dated 26.2.2020 (Annexure-12) issued under the signature of the District Education Officer- cum-District Program Officer, SamagraSikshaAbhiyan, Garhwa, as also the decision, of suspending the petitioner's contractual service, as contained in the office order contained in memo no.83 dated 7/11.2.2020 (Annexure-9) issued under the signature of the District Education Officer- cum-District Program Officer, SamagraSikshaAbhiyan, Garhwa; (b) For holding and declaring the petitioner as qualified and unblemished fit to be reinstated the post of Warden or on equivalent post at Kasturba Gandhi Girls' Residential School, Garhwa; (c) For directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Warden or on equivalent post at Kasturba Gandhi Girls' Residential School, Garhwa treating her service as continuous and with all consequential benefits. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed on contractual basis on the post of whole time Teacher (Language) at Kasturba Gandhi Girl’s Residential School, Ramna, Garhwa vide letter contained in memo No. 119/Garhwa dated 30.11.2005 and directed to submit her joining with medical health certificate before District Education Officer cum District Gender Convener, National Program for Education of Girls at Elementary Level (NPEGEL) Garhwa. On 30.11.2005, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner Garhwa that her appointment was for the period 01.12.2005 to 30.12.2006 with a fixed monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/-. With due approval of the competent authority, the petitioner was granted extension of service regularly. On 26.06.2019, while the petitioner was posted as Warden, one student studying in Class VIII fell ill and was admitted at Sadar Hospital and later advised to be treated at a better place. The mother of the student applied for grant of leave for the student and the same was granted by the petitioner. On 20.12.2019, the student lodged a First Information Report being Majhiaon P.S. Case No. 91 of 2019 implicating the petitioner and four other accused persons for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 370(VI),120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/16 of POCSO Act. On 20.12.2019, the student lodged a First Information Report being Majhiaon P.S. Case No. 91 of 2019 implicating the petitioner and four other accused persons for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 370(VI),120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/16 of POCSO Act. An enquiry team was constituted vide memo No. 3913 dated 19.12.2019, who reported that the student was pursuing her education in the school while being pregnant and the higher authorities were not informed. The District Education Officer-cum-District Program Officer asked the petitioner vide letter no. 1344 dated 27.12.2019 to submit her explanation within 24 hours as to why not she be discharged from her services on charges of gross negligence and dereliction in duty. The petitioner sent her reply to the aforesaid letter on 06.01.2020. The District Education Officer-cum-District Program Officer vide memo No. 83 dated 7/11.02.2020 suspended the contract of the petitioner. The petitioner was issued another letter No. 84 dated 11.02.2020 stating that her explanation was not received and further giving her another seven days to submit her reply. Later on, by memo No. 139 dated 26.02.2020 issued by the District Education Officer-cum-District Program Officer the contract of the petitioner was terminated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have ignored the petitioner’s reply dated 06.01.2020 and there is no reference of the decision taken on 7/11.02.2020 in the letter No.84 dated 11.02.2020. The learned counsel also submits that the victim (student) in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 21.12.2019 has not taken the name of the petitioner and the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail. The learned counsel further submits that the order of termination from service of the petitioner is stigmatic and has been imposed without following the principles of natural justice and due process of law. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the petitioner was negligent in her duties and did not notice the physical changes in the victim (student). The application for leave from school was granted by the Chairman of the School Managing Committee and not by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the enquiry report discloses that the petitioner did not perform her duties properly, neither she reported the incident to the higher authorities and also manipulated the records of the school. 6. The application for leave from school was granted by the Chairman of the School Managing Committee and not by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the enquiry report discloses that the petitioner did not perform her duties properly, neither she reported the incident to the higher authorities and also manipulated the records of the school. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, I find that the petitioner is a teacher at Kasturba Gandhi Girls Residential School, Garhwa. Though she was initially appointed on contractual basis, but the appointment continued. While she was posted as warden in Kasturba Gandhi Girls Residential School, Kajhiaon, Garhwa, a girl student (name withheld) lodged a First Information Report, stating that she was in love with one boy (name withheld), who was a neighbour and because of physical relationship, she became pregnant. Initially she could not understand about the pregnancy, but she had some pain and she went to Government Hospital, where she was administered medicine. Later on, she gave birth to a girl child. It is alleged that this petitioner persuaded her that she should not divulge the fact of delivery. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice, wherein it has been alleged that it came to light from the newspaper that a girl studying in Kasturba Gandhi Girls Residential School, became pregnant and this petitioner being warden, did not inform the aforesaid fact to the higher officials. It has also been alleged that the petitioner did not perform her responsibilities properly and it has also been alleged that the petitioner tried to tamper with the records of the school. The said notice is dated 27.12.2019. The petitioner filed a reply on 06.01.2020 stating therein that as the girl was having stomach pain, her parents were informed and her parents had taken her and got her treated. As she did not have any knowledge about the pregnancy, she did not inform anyone. Further she denied that she has tampered with any of the documents and pleaded that she has been falsely implicated. On 26.02.2020, impugned order was passed terminating the contract of the petitioner. 7. The services of the petitioner were terminated with allegation. It is well settled that even while terminating services of a contractual employee, principles of natural justice must be followed, more so when the allegation is of misconduct. On 26.02.2020, impugned order was passed terminating the contract of the petitioner. 7. The services of the petitioner were terminated with allegation. It is well settled that even while terminating services of a contractual employee, principles of natural justice must be followed, more so when the allegation is of misconduct. This Court in the case of Saraswati Kumari versus Director-cum-Member Secretary, Jharkhand Child Protection Institution and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 832 while relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation versus Brijesh Kumar [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2282], had observed as follows: - 4. The termination order is stigmatic. Even if a contractual employee is sought to be removed from service but if the order is stigmatic, a proper show-cause notice has to be given and enquiry has to be conducted. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Brijesh Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2282 at paragraph 19 of the said judgment has held as under: - “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.” 8. In this case, I find that show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. When a show notice has been issued to the petitioner and based on such show cause notice, services of the petitioner have been terminated, such show cause notice should be clear and unambiguous. Further the Disciplinary Authority must consider the reply to the show cause notice and deal with the reply. Reply must be considered and the consideration must be reflected in the order. Further the Disciplinary Authority must consider the reply to the show cause notice and deal with the reply. Reply must be considered and the consideration must be reflected in the order. The word ‘consider’ has been defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others versus A. Masilamani reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 at paragraph 19 thereof. Paragraph 19 of the said judgment reads as under: - 19. The word “consider” is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order. …” 9. In this case, there are three allegations against the petitioner as per the show cause notice dated 27.12.2019, which can be summed up as: - (i) A pregnant girl was studying in the school, which was not informed to the higher authorities; (ii) Petitioner has not responsibly performed her duty; (iii) Petitioner tried to tamper with the records of the School. 10. Allegation No.(ii) is absolutely vague and no substantial detail has been given, which can lead to conclude that the petitioner has not performed her duty responsibly. Further, with regard to allegation No.(iii) there is nothing to suggest that what are the records, which the petitioner tried to tamper with. This type of vague allegations cannot be answered properly nor these allegations, which are vague, can be taken to be ground for removal. So far as the allegation No.(i) is concerned, she was unaware about the pregnancy and it was father and mother of the girl, who had taken her for treatment. This type of vague allegations cannot be answered properly nor these allegations, which are vague, can be taken to be ground for removal. So far as the allegation No.(i) is concerned, she was unaware about the pregnancy and it was father and mother of the girl, who had taken her for treatment. Interestingly, in the counter affidavit dated 27.09.2021 filed the respondent No.3 they have taken a stand that the reply of the petitioner to the Show cause was placed in the meeting of Kasturba Gandhi Girls Residential School Committee on 07.02.2020 and as per the decision of the committee, the petitioner was put under suspension vide memo No.83 dated 11.02.2020, but in another letter No. 84 dated 11.02.2020, which was issued to the petitioner it was recorded that her explanation was not received and she was afforded another seven days time to submit her reply. Later on, by memo No. 139 dated 26.02.2020 the petitioner was dismissed from service. The impugned order is also cryptic. What prompted the respondents to disbelieve the aforesaid reply of the petitioner is not reflected in the impugned order itself. Further, the termination order has also bypassed the proper enquiry process. 11. In the light of what has been held above, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order as contained in memo No.139 dated 26.02.2020, terminating the petitioner's contractual service. The same is hereby quashed and set aside. Petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 12. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.