2025:JHHC:11350 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S) No. 1742 of 2025 ---- Mariam Malto, aged about 38 years, wife of Samuel Malto, resident of Village Badakerla, P.O. Rajabitha, P.S. Rajabitha, District Godda, Jharkhand ...............Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2.The Director, Health Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. and P.S. Godda, District Godda, Jharkhand. 4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Godda, P.O. and P.S. Godda, District Godda, Jharkhand. 5. The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Godda, P.O. and P.S. Godda, District Godda, Jharkhand. 6. The In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Boarijore, P.O. Boarijore, P.S. Sundarpahari, District Godda, Jharkhand. ....Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner : M/s. Durga Charan Mishra,Abhijeet Anand, Advocates For the Respondents : Ms. Amrita Banerjee,A.C to G.P.-I -- 02/15.04.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside Memo No. 1793 dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure-4) passed by Respondent No. 4, whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated from the date of issuance of the letter. 3. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the instant writ application are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of A.N.M. at Primary Health Centre, Bador, Boarijore,Godda and pursuant thereto; she has discharged her duties sincerely since the date of appointment i.e., 24.01.2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she was appointed on contractual basis but from the impugned order it clearly transpires that the same is 2025:JHHC:11350 2 punitive in nature and it will affect her future prospects and as it was issued without any show cause; she could not offer her explanation, thus the termination letter cannot sustain in the eye of law. 4. Mr. D.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this court towards the impugned order of removal and submits that the same is punitive in nature and it will certainly affect the future prospects of the petitioner and admittedly; no show cause notice was issued to her and the termination order has been passed without hearing. He lastly submits that in the similar matter of Maria Murmu (W.P.(S)No. 6139 of 2014), wherein similar impugned order was passed and the same was quashed by this Court. 5. Ms. Amrita Banerjee,A.C to G.P.-I, learned counsel for the State fairly submits that termination order was passed on the basis of performance report but she could not dispute the fact that no show-cause notice was given to her before termination. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with this petition and the averments made therein, it appears that the impugned order dated 20.11.2014 is stigmatic in nature and admittedly; the petitioner was not heard before termination. Termination of contractual employee can be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract; however, before issuance of termination order, if it is punitive in nature; opportunity to show cause must be given to the petitioner for compliance of principles of natural justice. The impugned order indicates that the petitioner was very much negligent towards her work. This finding in the impugned order can affect the future prospects of the 2025:JHHC:11350 3 petitioner. The law is now well settled that if any punitive order is to be passed; principles of nature justice must be complied. 7. Since in the instant case no show cause notice was issued against this petitioner and the termination order has been passed only on the performance report, it deserves to be quashed for non-compliance of natural justice. 8. Consequently, the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 1793 dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure-4) is quashed and set aside; however the concerned respondent would be at liberty to initiate a fresh proceeding, if so advised. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk