1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1051 of 2025 ----- 1.Prakash Kumar, aged about 51 years, son of late Akshaya Lal Ram, resident of Village Bhaibigha, PO and PS Haider Nagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand 2.Kamdeo Paswan, aged about 51 years, son of late Mundrika Paswab, resident of village Barewa, PO and PS Haider Nagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Deputy Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, FFP Building, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand 3.Director, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, FFP Building, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 4.Deputy Commissioner, Palamau ------ Respondent(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Ms. Ruchi Mukti, AC to AAG-IA …...... 04/03.03.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. This is a writ of certiorari. This can be disposed of at this stage itself without calling for the counter affidavit on the facts in the writ petition as the impugned order speaks for itself. 3. Vide impugned order as contained in Memo No.2002 dated 03.12.2024, the contract of the petitioners were terminated. Be it noted that the petitioner no. 1 was working as District Child Protection Officer, Palamau and petitioner no. 2 was working as Protection Officer (IC), Palamau. There was an allegation that in the said Child Unit, there was some sexual exploitation of minor girl, but when the matter was brought to the knowledge of these petitioners, these petitioners tried to cover-up the same and did not take the said allegation seriously. On this ground, their contract has been terminated on 03.12.2024. 2 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 and Others vs. Brijesh Kumar and Another, reported in 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.” 5. The show cause notice is at Annexure-1. This show cause notice issued vide Memo No. 1988 dated 02.12.2024 suggests that an explanation was sought for from the petitioners. The petitioners on the very next date have furnished their reply and on the same date i.e. on 03.12.2024 the respondents have terminated the contract of the petitioners. From the impugned order which is at Annexure- 5, I find that there is reference of internal report which holds the petitioners guilty but surprisingly from the show cause notice, I find that the same has not been served to the petitioners. When the respondents are relying upon some report but the same is not handed over to the petitioners for giving a proper reply, there is violation of the principles of natural justice. This will amount to not giving proper opportunity to the petitioners to give suitable reply. In this case principles of natural justice is also violated. 6. On the ground that the order is stigmatic and has been passed without proper inquiry and sufficient documents were not handed 3 over to the petitioners, the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 is set aside. 7. The respondents are directed to handover the petitioners, the copy of the inquiry report and seek proper explanation giving 21 days’ notice to the petitioners to reply on the same. On receipt of reply, the respondents are at liberty to take an appropriate step in this matter. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid direction. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj