ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Vinod Deshmukh and Ms. Dyna Bajpai learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire record relating the issue involve as well as note sheet in respect of the issuance of the order dated 02/2/2023 (Annexure P/5) issued by the District Education Officer Janjgir Champa as well as order dated 11/09/2023 (Annexure P/8) issued by the Director, Directorate Public Instructions Raipur. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 02/2/2023 issued by the District Education Officer Janjgir Champa and order dated 11-09-2023 issued by the Director, Directorate Public Instructions Raipur and further direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits and allow the petitioner to work as Computer Operator in office of District Education Officer, Janjgir Champa, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.). 10.3 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on 01.08.2003 as a Computer Operator on daily wages in the office of the District Education Officer, Janjgir- Champa, and his services were continuously extended from time to time till his illegal termination dated 02.02.2023, thereby completing more than 21 years of uninterrupted service under the Department. He further submits that during the entire tenure of service, the petitioner discharged his duties with utmost sincerity, honesty, and dedication. He was primarily responsible for data entry work, entering departmental information and particulars as per instructions of his higher authorities. At no point of time was any complaint, adverse remark, or disciplinary proceeding initiated against him during his long tenure of service. It is submitted that during the financial year 2019–2020, the petitioner, in compliance with the directions of his superior officers, carried out data entry relating to various schools under the Right to Education (RTE) Scheme, including the entry of the demand letter of Mayura Convent School, Baloda, which was duly approved and signed by the competent authority before data entry was made. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the said school was eligible for payment of Rs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the said school was eligible for payment of Rs. 7,24,362/- under the RTE scheme, due to an inadvertent error committed at the level of the approving authority, an amount of Rs. 72,27,690/- came to be deposited into the school’s account, resulting in an excess payment of Rs. 65,03,328/-. The petitioner, being a mere data entry operator, had no role whatsoever in sanctioning or approving the said amount. Immediately upon detection of the said excess payment, the Education Department raised objections and called upon the school to refund the excess amount. Consequently, the concerned school refunded the entire amount of Rs. 65,03,328/- to the State Government through various cheques and installments dated 09.05.2022, 16.02.2023, 17.02.2023, and 18.02.2023. Therefore, as on date, there is no financial loss to the Government, and the allegation of misappropriation or loss is wholly baseless. Despite the refund having been completed, after a lapse of nearly two years from the date of data entry, the District Education Officer, Janjgir-Champa issued a show cause notice dated 16.01.2023 alleging excess payment to the school. The petitioner, upon receipt of the said notice, immediately submitted a detailed reply on the same day, clarifying that the mistake was not attributable to him and enclosing relevant supporting documents. 5. It is further submitted that without considering the petitioner’s explanation and without affording any opportunity of personal hearing, the District Education Officer, by a non-speaking and mechanical order dated 02.02.2023, terminated the services of the petitioner with stigmatic remarks. The said order is violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to settled law that even a daily wage or temporary employee cannot be terminated on allegations of misconduct without due inquiry and immediately upon receiving the termination order, the petitioner submitted representations dated 07.02.2023 and 09.02.2023 before the District Education Officer seeking reconsideration and revocation of the termination order. However, no decision was taken on his representations. It is argued that being left with no alternative remedy, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur on 12.06.2023, but the same was rejected vide order dated 11.09.2023 in a most casual and arbitrary manner, without due consideration of the detailed grounds raised in the appeal. The impugned appellate order is non-speaking, cryptic, and passed without application of mind. The impugned appellate order is non-speaking, cryptic, and passed without application of mind. Both the impugned orders dated 02.02.2023 and 11.09.2023 are illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. The orders have been passed without following the due process of law and in violation of the petitioner's constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for an error that occurred at the level of the sanctioning and approving authorities, particularly when the entire excess amount has been refunded and no pecuniary loss has been sustained by the Government. The termination of the petitioner, therefore, lacks any legal foundation and deserves to be quashed. 6. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in WPS No. 8212/2023 , decided on 03.01.2025 , wherein in identical circumstances, this Court was set aside the termination order and direct reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. Accordingly, it is humbly prayed that similar relief may be granted to the present petitioner by setting aside the impugned orders dated 02.02.2023 and 11.09.2023, and by directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice, equity, and fairness. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned orders have been passed after due consideration of the material available on record and in accordance with law. It is contended that the petitioner, being a daily wage employee, has no vested right to continue in service and his termination was based on administrative reasons. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection as well as the order dated 03.01.2025 passed in WPS No. 8212/2023 . 9. From perusal of the impugned order dated 02.02.2023, it appears that the petitioner’s services have been terminated with stigmatic observations, alleging that he was responsible for excess payment made to Mayura Convent School, Baloda, under the Right to Education Scheme. However, the order itself does not disclose any material to show that any enquiry was conducted or that any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to passing of such punitive order. 10. However, the order itself does not disclose any material to show that any enquiry was conducted or that any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to passing of such punitive order. 10. It is further reflected from the record that though certain allegations were made regarding excess payment to the said school, the entire excess amount of Rs. 65,03,328/- has already been refunded by the school to the Government prior to and immediately after the termination of the petitioner. No loss, therefore, has been caused to the State exchequer. Despite this, the petitioner has been removed from service without holding any enquiry, without recording any finding of misconduct, and without affording an opportunity to submit his defence. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 has categorically held that even in cases of contractual or temporary employment, if the order of termination is stigmatic or punitive in nature, the same must be preceded by a proper enquiry and due opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee. This Court, in WPS No. 8212/2023 decided on 03.01.2025, has also held that any stigmatic or punitive termination order, even in respect of a daily wage or temporary employee, requires compliance with the principles of natural justice. 12. The ratio laid down in Swati Priyadarshini (supra) reiterates that before passing any stigmatic order of removal, a departmental enquiry is mandatory. 13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, it is evident that the impugned order dated 02.02.2023 has been passed in a most arbitrary and harsh manner, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order clearly casts a stigma by attributing blame for financial irregularity, though no enquiry was conducted and no evidence of misconduct was established. Even the appellate order dated 11.09.2023 suffers from non-application of mind, as it fails to address any of the grounds raised by the petitioner. 14. In view of the above discussions and in light of the settled position of law, the impugned orders dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure P/5) and 11.09.2023 (Annexure P/8) are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits flowing therefrom. 14. In view of the above discussions and in light of the settled position of law, the impugned orders dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure P/5) and 11.09.2023 (Annexure P/8) are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits flowing therefrom. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with law, if so advised. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. There shall be no order as to costs.