JUDGMENT : 1. Head Constable No.144 T. P. Mohd. Mukeem has preferred this special appeal challenging order dated 2.8.2011 rendered in Writ Petition No.4683 (SS) of 2011 titled ''Head Constable No.144 T. P. Mohd. Mukeem vs. State of U.P. and others'. Vide the impugned order the writ petition has been dismissed. 2. Counsel for the appellant has not appeared to prosecute the appeal. Even on 12.7.2019 the counsel did not appear. This court was constrained on passing the following order:- "1. Learned counsel for the appellant has not appeared. 2. We would like to give another opportunity of hearing to the appellant and therefore, direct that this appeal be listed for hearing on 16.7.2019, high up on the list. We make it clear that no further adjournment would be given." 3. The appeal relates to the year 2011. 8 years have gone by. We find no justifiable reason to await appearance of the counsel and adjourn the appeal. In such circumstances we have gone through the pleadings and contents of the impugned order with the assistance of Shri V.P.Nag, Shri Siddharth Dhaon and Shri Rajiv Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the State. 4. It appears that the appellant writ petitioner preferred the petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 25.11.2009, 5.5.2010, and order passed by appellate authority dated 22.7.2011. 5. We have gone through the contents of the impugned orders. Order dated 25.11.2009 appended with the writ petition as Annexure-1 provided that three police personnel, including the appellant writ petitioner were posted in District Lucknow in traffic police, however there were allegations against them of illegal demand/recovery from drivers. Such action is resulting in maligning the police force. In such circumstances the appellant writ petitioner was delisted from traffic police for all times. 6. Annexure-2 dated 5.5.2010 provided that the Director General of Police U.P. Lucknow vide order dated 24.11.2009 has directed that the writ petitioner was permanently delisted from being posted in traffic police and entry in that regard has been made in his Annual Confidential Report. 7. It appear that aggrieved by action of the respondents, the writ petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.2978(SS) of 2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 14.5.2010 with a direction that if appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner within ten days, it be considered and decided by the competent authority. 7. It appear that aggrieved by action of the respondents, the writ petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.2978(SS) of 2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 14.5.2010 with a direction that if appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner within ten days, it be considered and decided by the competent authority. Consequently, appellant writ petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected vide Annexure-3 dated 22.7.2011 appended with the writ petition. 8. Having gone through the contents of Annexure-3 we find that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the appellant writ petitioner on the ground that order is not stigmatic and therefore ordinarily appeal would not lie. However because the High Court has directed that the appeal be entertained, the appeal was entertained, however dismissed while recording a finding that merely posting the appellant writ petitioner out of traffic police would not adversely affect his right because there was no separate cadre. 9. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 2.8.2011 in the following terms:- "Notice on behalf of opposite parties have been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.11.2009 whereby he has been de-listed from the Traffic Police keeping in view his misconduct. It is stated that for the said misconduct the petitioner has already faced disciplinary proceedings, therefore, he cannot be subjected for further punitive action and even though if any punishment is inflicted upon him that cannot be done without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, on perusal of the record, I am of the view that the petitioner has been de-listed from the traffic police and now he is in Civil Police. The order is not a kind of punishment rather it is a simplicitor order. Keeping in view his misconduct the petitioner has been de-listed from the Traffic Police. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in order dated 25.11.2009. The writ petition is dismissed." 10. In the grounds of appeal it has been pleaded that orders passed by respondents which are in question are stigmatic and could not have been passed without giving appropriate opportunity of hearing. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in order dated 25.11.2009. The writ petition is dismissed." 10. In the grounds of appeal it has been pleaded that orders passed by respondents which are in question are stigmatic and could not have been passed without giving appropriate opportunity of hearing. It has been pleaded that the finding recorded by the writ court to the effect that the writ petitioner had only been delisted from traffic police and was posted in civil police is erroneous in so much as the language of the orders itself suggests that they were stigmatic. 11. We have considered the facts and circumstances carefully. As noticed above vide order Annexure-2 dated 5.5.2010 an entry has been made in the Annual Confidential Report of the writ petitioner in regard to order passed for delisting the petitioner from traffic police on permanent basis. It is further evident that order Annexure-1 dated 25.11.2009 was passed while recording the conduct of the writ petitioner of making illegal demand/recovery from the drivers, while posted in traffic police. Order Annexure-1 appears to be the basis of passing order Annexure-2. Such orders also indicate stigma on the work and conduct of the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent State has not been able to dispute that the language of Annexure-1 casts a stigma on the appellant writ petitioner in regard to his work and conduct. Consequential order Annexure-2 dated 5.5.2010 has been passed in view of allegation against the appellant/writ petition as contained in Annexure-1, which would have permanent effect. Learned counsel for the respondent State has not been able to show from the record that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing orders Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 appended with the writ petition. 12. ''Stigma' in ordinary parlance would mean ''a mark of disgrace or infamy; a stain or reproach, as on one's reputation'. The observation of senior officers in the police department in regard to work and conduct of the petitioner, as recorded in Annexure-1 dated 25.11.2009, and consequent entry in Annexure-2 dated 5.5.2010 would clearly establish that the appellant writ petitioner has been stigmatized. In the considered opinion of the court, therefore, the respondents authorities have erred in dealing with the case as of mere transfer within the cadre. In the considered opinion of the court, therefore, the respondents authorities have erred in dealing with the case as of mere transfer within the cadre. We are of the considered view that learned Single Judge has considered the orders passed against the appellant writ petitioner as orders simplicitor of delisting from traffic police, and posting in civil police. The observation in the said orders, however had not been considered by learned Single Judge. The order passed by learned Single Judge does notice that it is on account of misconduct of the petitioner that he has been delisted from traffic police, however, has failed to consider that before passing of the said order opportunity of hearing has not been given to the petitioner. Since the language of Annexures 1 and 2 appended with the writ petition itself indicates that the appellant writ petitioner has been stigmatized, we find that the findings recorded by the appellate authority in Annexure-3 dated 22.7.2011 are erroneous, and adversely affect the rights of the appellant writ petitioner. Manifest injustice would be caused if opportunity of hearing is not given to the petitioner, before any such stigmatic order is passed. 13. The analogy that ''delisting' from traffic Police, and posting in civil police is not a punishment because they fall in the same cadre, is acceptable, however the reasons for such action have been given in Annexures 1 and 2. The reasons assigned for delisting are certainly stigmatic. The exercise undertaken by the respondents in delisting the appellant writ petitioner with permanent effect might be in view of administrative exigency, and might be justifiable, but the language of orders Annexure 1 and 2, and entry in that regard in the Annual Confidential Report would certainly cast a stigma in regard to work and conduct of the writ petitioner. Such delisting, technically would not be an order of punishment, however the language and the reasons given in orders Annexures 1 and 2 surely cast a stigma because they comment adversely on the work and conduct of the appellant writ petitioner. 14. It is settled law that if any stigmatic order is to be passed, opportunity of hearing is required to be given. It does not appear that any such exercise has been undertaken after which the impugned orders have been passed. 15. 14. It is settled law that if any stigmatic order is to be passed, opportunity of hearing is required to be given. It does not appear that any such exercise has been undertaken after which the impugned orders have been passed. 15. The facts and circumstances and the language of the orders passed by the respondents does not appear to have been taken into account at the time of decision of the writ petition. In such circumstances, we hereby allow the appeal and set aside order dated 2.8.2011 rendered by learned Single Judge. Consequently order dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure-1), order dated 5.5.2010 (Annexure-2) and appellate order dated 22.7.2011 (Annexure-3) impugned vide the writ petition are also quashed. 16. We hereby remit the matter back to Director General of Police U.P. Lucknow who shall ensure that appropriate opportunity of hearing is given to the appellant writ petitioner before passing any order that might have stigmatic effect.