JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) : Heard learned counsel, Mr. R.D. Paul for the petitioner and learned Addl. G.A., Mrs. A.S. Lodh for the respondents. 2. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was engaged as a Gram Rozgar Sewak(for short, GRS) on contract basis by a Memo. dated 14.10.2009 issued by respondent No.5 at a fixed pay of Rs.4,500/per month initially for a period of two years. Her such engagement was extended time to time and admittedly it was an engagement under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee(MGNREGA) Scheme. She was issued a show cause notice on 30.11.2013 by the respondent No.5 alleging that she being a GRS of Ghilatali G.P. manipulated office records, like scrolls which were issued for payment of wages to the job card holders under MGNREGA scheme. She was asked to submit show cause reply within five days from the date of receipt of that notice dated 30.11.2013. Thereafter, by order dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) her engagement on contract basis as GRS was cancelled by the respondent No.3. 3. By filing this writ petition the petitioner challenged that order dated 17.12.2013. 4. Mr. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the termination of the petitioner is stigmatic but she was not given any opportunity to be heard. An inquiry was made by the respondents and copy of the inquiry report has been annexed as Annexure R 5 which does not clearly indicate that the petitioner was solely responsible for the alleged manipulation of office records like scrolls, etc. and that PRIs and other bank officials were also likely to be involved and while such a report was there the petitioner’s contractual engagement should not have been cancelled by impugned order dated 17.12.2013. It is emphatically submitted by Mr. Paul that since the order is stigmatic, an inquiry ought to have been conducted in accordance with the provisions prescribed under CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965. 5. Learned Addl. G.A., Mrs. Lodh appearing for the respondents submits that in response to the show cause notice the petitioner clearly admitted her guilt in respect of manipulation of the records and that of the siphoning of public fund and subsequently she deposited some amount. While she admitted the allegation there was nothing to be inquired. 6. 5. Learned Addl. G.A., Mrs. Lodh appearing for the respondents submits that in response to the show cause notice the petitioner clearly admitted her guilt in respect of manipulation of the records and that of the siphoning of public fund and subsequently she deposited some amount. While she admitted the allegation there was nothing to be inquired. 6. I am quite surprised and astonished to see that the petitioner in the writ petition stated about the issuance of show cause notice but the petitioner deliberately did not state anything that she submitted show cause reply admitting the allegation made against her. In para 5 of the writ petition the petitioner stated thus: “5. That the petitioner received the above show cause notice on 06.12.2013. She was at a loss and within that short time could not submit any show cause reply as per direction contained in the said show cause notice.” Whereas, the respondents made specific statement in their counter affidavit that the petitioner by filing show cause reply admitted the allegation and the show cause reply so submitted by the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure R2. The English rendering of Annexure R2 reads as follows: “To The BDO Kalyanpur R.D. Block, Kalyanpur, Khowai Tripura. Subject : Reply on Show Cause Notice. Respected Madam, In response to your show cause notice No.F.2/BDO/KLN/ESTT/2013/13753-54, dated 30.11.2013 I at the outset comply with the charges of misdeeds and pray for pardoning me. I have deposited an amount of Rs.31,000/on last 25.11.2013 at Tripura Grameen Bank, Kalyanpur Branch in self motivated manner finding mismatches in the official papers as well as in the bank scrolls. I am sorry as well as self humiliated for the said errors. In addition to this I beg most humbly to you to exonerate me for this error. In most of the cases the problem is created because of the exhibition of allurement by the B.Cs of the Bank. I promise that I shall perform my duties with full faith. I beg you pardon on behalf of me as well as my family members. Therefore, my humble submission is that my errors of commission may be pardoned and be given a chance to perform my duties in righteous manner in future. Thanking you, Dated, 05.12.2013 Amrika Debnath, GRS” 7. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner admitted that she has submitted show cause reply but it was under pressure. Therefore, my humble submission is that my errors of commission may be pardoned and be given a chance to perform my duties in righteous manner in future. Thanking you, Dated, 05.12.2013 Amrika Debnath, GRS” 7. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner admitted that she has submitted show cause reply but it was under pressure. It is a clear case of suppression of material fact. The petitioner intentionally and deliberately did not state in the writ petition that she submitted show cause reply admitting the allegation of the manipulation of the office records in respect of payment of wages to the job card holders. The engagement was purely on contract basis. While there was such allegation and the petitioner admitted the allegation in writing, whereas suppressed such fact in the writ petition, I find, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in the writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. However, no cost is imposed.