JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing memo dated 19.12.2007 as well as memo dated 20.06.2009, by which, selection of the petitioners as Para Teachers has been terminated. 2. The facts, in brief, is that petitioner no.1 was duly selected as Para Teacher by Aam Sabha on 16.01.2005 and petitioner no.2 was duly selected by Aam Sabha on 16.05.2007. It has been averred that after their selection/appointment they received their honorarium upto March, 2008 but after that they did not get their payment till 06.02.2011. In this regard, they submitted their representation on 28.01.2010, but, it did not evoke any response. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 4360 of 2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 01.10.2010 with a direction to the respondents to consider their claim within a period of eight weeks. In compliance thereof, the petitioners were called for to appear before the office of Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara on 07.02.2011, where it is alleged that the respondents forcibly handed over the copy of termination order dated 20.06.2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the impugned order has been passed without calling for any explanation or show cause to the petitioner and without following the principles of natural justice and no opportunity of defending his case was afforded to the petitioner. 4. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on the basis of complaint against the petitioners, the selection/appointment of the petitioner has been terminated as their selection was made in utter violation of relevant rules, hence, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 19.12.2007 rightly dismissed the petitioner from services, which needs no interference by this Court. 5. After having heard learned counsels for both the parties at length and going through the materials available on record, I am of the view that the impugned orders of termination deserves to be quashed and set aside for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i). In the instant case, the petitioners have been terminated mainly on the basis of complaint made by one political person that their selection has been done in violation of service rules. In the instant case, the petitioners have been terminated mainly on the basis of complaint made by one political person that their selection has been done in violation of service rules. Although the petitioners were serving as Para Teachers but the petitioners are entitled to certain protection and their services could not be terminated without complying the principles of natural justice. (ii). Furthermore, the impugned order appears to be innocuous as a termination simplicitor but the respondents have terminated the petitioner for certain complain, which is a stigmatic and punitive order. Therefore, the impugned order of termination is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same has been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice and Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. (v). View of this Court gets fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab & Others as reported in (2000) 3 SCC 239 , wherein it has been held that if the order is stigmatic or punitive the rules of principles of natural justice ought to have been followed by the respondents authority. (vi). It is admitted fact that before dispensing with the services of the petitioner no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner thereby visiting him with civil consequences, therefore, the impugned order of termination is not sustainable in law. 6. In view of the above-narrated facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order of termination are hereby quashed and set set aside. However, disposal of this writ application will not preclude the respondents authorities to take a fresh decision after following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application stands allowed.