ORDER : Heard learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Jharkhand Police Housing Corporation Limited and the State. 2. Petitioner, a Junior Engineer engaged on contractual basis in the Corporation on 30.09.2014(Annexure-1) was served with a show cause, Annexure-2 dated 18.07.2016 for having been instrumental in making excess payment of Rs.1,83,651/-to the Contractor under Agreement No. 01F2/08-09 as per the report of the Enquiry Committee. Under first, second and third on account bills, a total sum of Rs. 29,15,581/-were paid, whereas the measurement undertaken by the Enquiry Committee revealed execution of actual work to the tune of Rs. 27,31,930/-. It was alleged that excess payment were made by making incorrect entries in the measurement book, which is reflective of financial irregularity and has caused undue loss to the Corporation while giving undue benefit to the Contractor. The show cause asked the petitioner to reply within 15 days also as to why 1/3rd amount of excess payment i.e., Rs.61,217/-be not recovered from him and proper administrative action be not taken. 3. Petitioner, through his reply dated 29.07.2016 (Annexure-3) took specific plea that payment against third on account bill was only made by him but the show cause did not reveal as to how petitioner in that manner was responsible for excess payment of total amount of Rs.1,83,651/-. He also requested for a fresh enquiry to be undertaken in his presence. His explanation was rejected by annexure-4 letter no. 1087 dated 10.09.2016 by the Manager(Personnel) of the Corporation on the ground that enquiry conducted by the Technical Committee of actual execution of work showed false entries in the measurement book in connivance with the Contractor which resulted in excess payment. Petitioner along with Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer, all were found to be involved in such payment. The order of termination of service is at Annexure-5 bearing memo no. 1177 dated 04.10.2016 passed by the Manager (Personnel). The impugned order refers to the charge of making excess payment of Rs.1,83,651/-to the concerned Contractor, which resulted in loss to the Corporation. Petitioner’s conduct was found to be irresponsible and indisciplined. Therefore, for administrative and disciplinary reasons, services of petitioner were terminated in terms of his contractual engagement. The order of recovery is at Annexure-6 bearing memo no. 1244 dated 18.10.2016 issued by the Accounts Officer of the Corporation. 4. Petitioner’s conduct was found to be irresponsible and indisciplined. Therefore, for administrative and disciplinary reasons, services of petitioner were terminated in terms of his contractual engagement. The order of recovery is at Annexure-6 bearing memo no. 1244 dated 18.10.2016 issued by the Accounts Officer of the Corporation. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned decision inter alia on the following grounds: (i) Copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. Specific statement made at para 16 of the writ petition also remains unrebutted by the Respondent Corporation. (ii) Specific explanation of the petitioner vide Annexure-3 has not at all been considered by the Respondents. (iii) The order impugned is stigmatic on its face and it fails to discuss or show application of mind to the petitioner‘s reply. (iv) Though the impugned order on the face of it is stigmatic but the Respondents have sought to rely on the terms of the contractual engagement to terminate his engagement which can’t be resorted to. (v) The order of punishment is not innocuous or simplicitor. It shall entail stigma in any future employment. The order of recovery has also been passed without dealing with the show cause and ascertaining individual liability of the petitioner, if any. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Shahi Vrs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 152 , para 28. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent Corporation has referred to the contents of the counter affidavit while defending the impugned decision. The Enquiry report enclosed as Annexure-E was prepared by a team of two Executive Engineers, one Assistant Engineer and one Junior Engineer. He submits that inspection and assessment of the executed work made by the Technical Committee revealed excess payment beyond the actual execution of the work to the tune of Rs.1,83,651/-for which three officers i.e., the Executive Engineer, the Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineer i.e., petitioner were held to be responsible. Petitioner was asked to submit his explanation through show cause dated 18.07.2016. His reply has also been found to be unsatisfactory and accordingly rejected by Annexure-4 dated 10.09.2016. 1/3rd of the excess payment has been recovered from the petitioner out of total amount of Rs.1,83,651/-. Petitioner was asked to submit his explanation through show cause dated 18.07.2016. His reply has also been found to be unsatisfactory and accordingly rejected by Annexure-4 dated 10.09.2016. 1/3rd of the excess payment has been recovered from the petitioner out of total amount of Rs.1,83,651/-. Petitioner’s engagement was purely contractual in nature and therefore he can have no claim of permanence in service. If such misconduct of the petitioner was established after due show cause notice upon the petitioner, Respondent Corporation was justified in termination of his services on administrative and disciplinary ground by invoking terms of the contract. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent Corporation has not been able to specifically deny the statements made at para 16 of the writ petition that copy of the enquiry report was not served upon the petitioner. He has also not been able to improve his case on the ground referred in the order of rejection at Annexure-4 or the impugned order at Annexure-5 as to how petitioner, through whom the third on account bill only was passed was held to be responsible for excess payment for the total amount of Rs.1,83,651/-out of which 1/3rd amount has been recovered from him. However, he has justified the impugned decision on the ground that petitioner was found irresponsible in execution of the work and making incorrect entries in the measurement book. 7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the relevant material pleadings on record and the judgment relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well. From the chronology of facts recorded herein above, it emerges that the engagement of the petitioner was contractual in nature. However for alleged irregularity in making excess payment to the Contractor to the tune of Rs.1,83,651/-based on the report of the Technical Committee, a show cause was issued upon him. The enquiry report has not been furnished to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. Specific statements made para 16 of the writ petition do not stand specifically controverted nor annexure-2 shows any enclosure of such report being furnished to him. Petitioner took a plea that only third on account bill was paid through him. The order rejecting his show cause has failed to show as to how this explanation of the petitioner has been dealt with. Petitioner took a plea that only third on account bill was paid through him. The order rejecting his show cause has failed to show as to how this explanation of the petitioner has been dealt with. The order impugned on the face of it held the petitioner liable for acts of indiscipline and irresponsible behavior in ensuring excess payment of Rs. 1,83,651/-thereby causing loss to the Corporation but specific plea of the petitioner has not been dealt with therein. 8. Respondents have while terminating the services of the petitioner invoking terms of his contractual engagement also observed that the decision is based on administrative and disciplinary ground. As such the order of termination is not simplicitor but contains stigma. If the Respondents havechosen to conduct an enquiry, the report of which has not been furnished to the petitioner and based on that issued a show cause notice, the reply/explanation thereto should have been properly dealt with by the respondents while passing the impugned order. The enquiry and the show cause are the foundation on which the impugned decision is based. Therefore it cannot be said to be termination simplicitor under the terms of the contract. Respondents ought to have taken into account and dealt with the explanation of the petitioner in proper manner with full application of mind. Stigma, as such, would entail adverse consequence for any future employment. 9. In such circumstances, following the ratio rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Shahi (supra) and also in the case of Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vrs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar & others reported in (2015) 15 SCC 151 , this Court is of the considered opinion that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances the impugned order at Annexure 5 and 6 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, they are quashed. Respondents are allowed liberty to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law after serving the copy of the enquiry report upon the petitioner and taking into account the explanation thereupon within a reasonable time, preferably 10 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Accordingly, they are quashed. Respondents are allowed liberty to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law after serving the copy of the enquiry report upon the petitioner and taking into account the explanation thereupon within a reasonable time, preferably 10 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. However, it is made clear that quashing of the impugned order would not entail automatic reinstatement of the petitioner in service in the light of the opinion of by the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India Vrs. A. Masilamani reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 . Para 16 thereof. Dependent upon such order passed by the Respondent Corporation, consequence in law would follow. 10. The writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated herein above.