ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The short question of law involved in the present writ petition is, whether the services of an employee under the Rules Relating to Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Contingency-Paid (District and Sessions Judges Establishment) Employees Rules, 1980 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1980’), can be terminated without conducting a departmental enquiry when an order of termination casts stigma on the employee? 2. The aforesaid question of law arises on the following factual backdrop: - 3. The petitioner was appointed as Watchman on 25-10-2016 in Unreserved (Handicap) category and thereafter, on 29-4-2019, a show-cause notice was issued to him and one another Watchman in respect of theft of Reverse Osmosis (RO) Filter of the Water Cooler from the ground floor of the New Court Premises of District Court, Bilaspur. The petitioner filed reply to the show-cause notice on 4-5- 2019 and again a fresh show-cause notice was issued to him on 4-5-2019 itself to which also he filed reply on 6-5-2019 and thereafter, on 26-6-2019 by the impugned order, his services were terminated with immediate effect which is sought to be challenged by way of this writ petition. 4. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3 stating inter alia that the petitioner has been terminated in accordance with the Rules of 1980 read with clause 4 of the appointment order, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed 5. Mr. Rajeev Bharat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the order impugned terminating the services of the petitioner is stigmatic in nature, he has been alleged to be guilty of committing theft in the Governmental job and therefore the procedure prescribed in Rule 15 of the Rules of 1980 ought to have been followed which has not been followed, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 6. Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3, would oppose the writ petition and support the order impugned and submit that the services of the petitioner have rightly been terminated in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1980 considering his past conduct also. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was suspected to commit theft of the RO installed in the new District Court Premises of Bilaspur and his conduct was found suspicious which is covered under Rule 13(a) of the Rules of 1980, however, after giving one month notice in accordance with law, his services have been terminated and thus, he has suffered penalty of Rule 14(viii) of the Rules of 1980 as his conduct was suspicious. 9. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1980, which prescribes Procedure for imposing penalties, ought to have been complied with. It states as under: - “ 15. Procedure for imposing penalties .—(1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi), (vii) and (viii) of rule 14 shall be passed except after— (i) the employee is informed in writing, when possible to do so, of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken; (ii) the employee is, as soon as possible, give an opportunity to explain his position in regard to the allegations made against him; (iii) such explanation, if any, is taken into consideration: Provided further that— (i) no person shall be dismissed without the order of the competent authority; and Provided further that— (ii) it shall not be necessary to do so where the Honourable the Chief Justice finds it necessary to remove an employee from service on the ground of security of the State. (2) xxx xxx xxx” 10. In the instant case, except two show-cause notices, the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken have not been mentioned and neither charge-sheet was issued nor departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the order of termination was came to be passed. 11. In the matter of Krishna Pal v. District & Sessions Judge, Morena, WP No.17745/2016, decided on 21-2-2017 , in identical fact-situation, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court considering Rule 14 of the Rules of 1980, held as under: - “5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have also taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case. Rule 1988 contemplates provision for termination of service of an employee appointed under these rules. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have also taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case. Rule 1988 contemplates provision for termination of service of an employee appointed under these rules. Rule-9 contemplates termination after giving one month notice or in lieu of one month salary for terminating the services, if the Appointing Authority is of the opinion that the services are no longer required and thereafter certain conducts as are indicated from clause (a) to (p). Rule 13 are classified as acts of commission and omission which amounts to misconduct and penalty forsuch misconduct is contemplated under Rule 14 and the procedure for imposing penalties are contemplated under Rule 15. Normally when the services of a temporary employee or a probationer or a contingency paid employee is brought to an end by passing an innocuous order due to unsatisfactory nature of service or on account of an act for which some action is taken but the termination is made in a simplicitor manner without conducting of inquiry or without casting any stigma on the employee, the provision of Rule 9 can be taken aid of and action undertaken. However, when the termination is founded on acts of commission or omission, which amounts to misconduct and when the found action for termination is such acts of misconduct then the termination amounts to casting stigma on the conduct, character and work of the employee concerned and when the termination has the effect of casting stigma on an employee concerned. However, when the termination is founded on acts of commission or omission, which amounts to misconduct and when the found action for termination is such acts of misconduct then the termination amounts to casting stigma on the conduct, character and work of the employee concerned and when the termination has the effect of casting stigma on an employee concerned. the principle of natural justice, opportunity of hearing and inquiry are required to be conducted i.e. why if we go through the Rules of 1980, we find that apart from providing a provision for termination, simplictor provision is also contemplated for taking action in cases of misconduct committed by a temporary or contingency employee, accordingly, in this case if we analysis the facts as have come on record we find that the termination is founded on the act of commission and omission alleged against the petitioner, which form part of the show cause notice issued to him and in the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 28-09- 2016, passed by the Disciplinary Authority namely the District Judge, we find that that it is a detailed order running to more than 4 paragraphs and the termination is founded and based on allegation or act of commission and omission said to have been conducted by the petitioner. The act of commission and omission conducted by the petitioner are indicated not only in the show cause notice but also in the impugned order of termination, which clearly shows that it is an act of willful in- subordination, disobedience and an act unbecoming of an employee, which amounts to misconduct as contemplated under Rule 13 of Rules 1980 and if the action was to be taken for these reasons, we are of the considered view that the statutory provision contemplated under Rule 15 would have to be followed and as the action in this case is taken without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 15, it is a fit case where the petition should be allowed on this ground and the termination quashed. 6. We may also refer to certain judgments of the Supreme Court. namely Nehru Yuva Kendra Sanathan Vs. Mehbum Alam Laskar, reported in (2008)2 SCC 479 and Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna Bihar and others, reported in AIR 2006 SC 467 . 6. We may also refer to certain judgments of the Supreme Court. namely Nehru Yuva Kendra Sanathan Vs. Mehbum Alam Laskar, reported in (2008)2 SCC 479 and Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna Bihar and others, reported in AIR 2006 SC 467 . In the aforesaid cases, the principle laid down is that if the termination is founded on certain misconduct and if the action is taken based on the said foundation, the same amounts to passing stigmatic order and for taking such action, conduct of inquiry and complying with the requirement of principle of natural justice is necessary.” 12. Admittedly, in the instant case, the services of the petitioner are governed by the Rules of 1980. However, except the two show-cause notices, the petitioner was neither served with charge-sheet nor departmental enquiry was conducted against him and the order of termination attributes dereliction of duty amounting to misconduct and as such, the same is clearly stigmatic in nature. When the termination is founded on acts of commission or omission, which amounts to misconduct, such an order casts stigma on the conduct, character and work of the employee and hence, the principles of natural justice, opportunity of hearing and inquiry are the requirements of law. Thus, Rule 15 of the Rules of 1980 ought to have been followed in its letter and spirit which has not been followed. Therefore, the order impugned is in teeth of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1980 and accordingly, it is liable to be set aside. 13. In that view of the matter, the order impugned dated 26-6-2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set-aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all service benefits except back-wages. The question of back-wages shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law based on the petitioner’s submitting an application as to whether during the period of termination, he was gainfully employed or not. However, liberty is reserved in favour of respondents No.2 & 3 to proceed in accordance with the rules, if so advised. 14. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above with no order as to cost(s).