JUDGMENT : RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 1.9.2018, contained as Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition, passed by the Deputy Collector, Sadar, Lucknow whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated by canceling the bond of the petitioner. The petitioner has also assailed the minutes of meeting of District Level Prayokta Prabhar Samiti dated 27.8.2018, contained as Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition, pursuant to which the termination order dated 1.9.2018 has been passed and the order dated 17.1.2019, contained as Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition, has been passed by the Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow canceling the bond of the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 1.12.2009 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Technical Manpower for data-feeding by Prayokta Prabhar Samiti, Tehsil Level, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'Samiti' in short). The Deputy Collector, Sadar, Lucknow is President of the aforesaid Samiti. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner immediately joined on the post and since then the petitioner is continuing on the post in question and his work and conduct has been excellent up to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned as no adverse has ever been communicated to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a bond was executed between the petitioner and the Deputy Collector, Sadar, Lucknow in a capacity of Chairperson of the Samiti. It has categorically been indicated in the said bond that the services of the petitioner can be dispensed with only on the irregularities or misconduct on being found proved in the inquiry. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Lucknow issued a show cause notice dated 20.8.2018 requiring the petitioner to submit an explanation on the allegation that the beneficiaries, whose claim was forwarded under the digital signature of Deputy Collector, Sadar, Lucknow has been found ineligible and the working of the petitioner appears to be suspicious. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Lucknow issued a show cause notice dated 20.8.2018 requiring the petitioner to submit an explanation on the allegation that the beneficiaries, whose claim was forwarded under the digital signature of Deputy Collector, Sadar, Lucknow has been found ineligible and the working of the petitioner appears to be suspicious. Just after receiving the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner submitted his explanation on 21.8.2018 denying the charges leveled against him stating that applications have been forwarded only when the competent authority i.e. Deputy Collector has permitted to use the digital signature after verification as the digital signature is contained in pen-drive, which remains under the lock and key of authority concerned i.e. Deputy Collector who has himself found that 50% applications were not received and it was one Sri Ram Naresh, Naib-Nazir who made inspection relating to ineligibility and no work is directly awarded to the petitioner as his duties are for data-feeding only. 5. As per learned counsel for the petitioner despite submitting the specific and categoric reply to the show cause notice, the Samiti made a recommendation on 25.8.2018 for cancellation of bonds and also termination of service of the petitioner on the aforesaid allegations. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was unable to comprehend as to why this punitive order has been passed when the appropriate explanation was already given by the petitioner and if such punitive order was required to be passed, at least the petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing, inasmuch as, the order of termination has been issued in utter violation of principles of natural justice. 7. However, the petitioner lodged a complaint / representation dated 4.11.2018 under the Complaint Redressal Portal regarding his termination of service. 8. On 19.12.2018 the petitioner was informed that he has been placed under suspension in respect of the aforesaid alleged irregularities allegedly committed by him but no formal order to that effect has ever been issued. Feeling aggrieved out of aforesaid inaction the petitioner lodged another complaint / representation dated 1.1.2019 under Complaint Redressal Portal. However, on 17.1.2019 the petitioner was informed that his services have been terminated on account of the alleged irregularities which are said to have been committed by the petitioner. However, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had not committed any irregularity as alleged. 9. However, on 17.1.2019 the petitioner was informed that his services have been terminated on account of the alleged irregularities which are said to have been committed by the petitioner. However, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had not committed any irregularity as alleged. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid orders are stigmatic on the face of it having been passed without providing the charge-sheet to the petitioner, and the services of the petitioner have been terminated canceling the bond of appointment only. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is a settled proposition of law right from the legal proposition settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 1958 SCR 828 till date, that if the termination order is passed against any employee on the basis of some allegations, the employee should be given a charge-sheet thereby asking defense reply and then the full fledged departmental inquiry should be conducted following the principles of natural justice. In the present case admittedly no charges have been framed against the petitioner resultantly no charge-sheet has been given, no regular inquiry has been held nor any show cause notice has been issued against the petitioner regarding alleged misuse of digital signature of the Deputy Collector. Further, one Sri Ram Naresh, Naib-Nazir had committed the misconduct in question but he has been left with no punishment of any kind whatsoever. Furthermore, the Appointing Authority of the petitioner is Deputy Collector, Sadar, Lucknow but the order impugned has been passed by the Samiti, therefore, the order impugned is without jurisdiction order. 10. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has vehemently submitted referring his counter affidavit that in pursuance of the inquiry report conducted in respect of charge of misconduct leveled against the petitioner, the meeting of Samiti held on 25.8.2018 and thereafter the sudden meeting of Samiti was again held on 27.8.2018 in which the petitioner was found guilty, therefore, the termination order dated 1.9.2019 has been passed. As per learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel there is no infirmity or illegality in the termination order of the petitioner. As per learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel there is no infirmity or illegality in the termination order of the petitioner. Sri Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted with vehemence that since the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and the bond to that effect was executed between the petitioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, therefore, there was no need to conduct the full-fledged departmental inquiry to take action against any contractual employee. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit denying the allegations leveled against him viz. a viz. denying the averments of counter affidavit reiterating the submissions of writ petition. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record I found that the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not demonstrate anything which could establish that before terminating the service of the petitioner any charge-sheet was given to the petitioner; he was given any opportunity to file his defense reply or any full-fledged inquiry has ever been conducted against the petitioner. The material available on record reveals that no departmental inquiry was ever conducted against the petitioner and the petitioner has not been afforded ample opportunity of hearing. This Court has also noted that the bond which has been enclosed with the writ petition clearly reveals that if the services of the petitioner would be terminated at any time on the basis of any irregularity, the same can be done only after conducting the inquiry to that effect. The term 'inquiry' as used in the bond means departmental inquiry inasmuch as the factum of guilt can only be established if an employee is tried departmentally and such trial should be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law by following the principles of natural justice. In the present case no such exercise appears to have been done. 13. The term 'inquiry' as used in the bond means departmental inquiry inasmuch as the factum of guilt can only be established if an employee is tried departmentally and such trial should be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law by following the principles of natural justice. In the present case no such exercise appears to have been done. 13. So far as the argument of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the services of a contractual employee may be dispensed with without conducting full fledged departmental inquiry has got no force, firstly for the reason that in the bond itself it has categorically been indicated that if the services of the petitioner would be dispensed with / terminated on account of any irregularity being committed by the petitioner, the same could have been done after conducting the inquiry and the same has not been done here, secondly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: State Bank of India and others vs. Palak Modi and others, 2013 3 SCC 607 (Civil Appeal No. 7841-7842 of 2012 vide judgment of order dated 3.12.2012) has dealt almost the identical issue and vide para 11 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "11. The question whether termination of the service of a temporary employee or a probationer can be treated as punitive even though the order passed by the competent authority does not contain any stigma has been considered in a series of judgments. In Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 1958 SCR 828 , which can be considered as an important milestone in the development of one facet of service jurisprudence in the country, the Constitution Bench was called upon to decide whether the order of reversion of an official holding a higher post in an officiating capacity could be treated as punitive. After elaborate consideration of the relevant provisions of the Constitution and judicial decisions on the subject, the Constitution Bench observed: "...In short, if the termination of service is founded on the right flowing from contract or the service rules then, prima facie, the termination is not a punishment and carries with it no evil consequences and so Article 311 is not attracted. But even if the Government has, by contract or under the rules, the right to terminate the employment without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be complied with...." 14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and also in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) I am of the considered opinion that the termination order dated 1.9.2018, contained as Annexure no. 1, passed by the Deputy Collector, Sadar, Lucknow and the minutes of meeting of District Level Prayokta Prabhar Samiti dated 27.8.2018, contained as Annexure no. 2, pursuant to which the termination order dated 1.9.2018 has been passed and order dated 17.1.2019, contained as Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition, passed by the Tehsildar, Lucknow on the representation of the petitioner canceling his service bond are not sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, those are liable to be set aside and accordingly all the aforesaid orders dated 1.9.2018, 27.8.2018 and 17.1.2019 (Annexures no. 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. 15. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner in service ignoring the aforesaid orders dated 1.8.2018 and 27.8.2018 and 17.1.2019 with promptness, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order of this Court. 16. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential service benefits as if the orders dated 1.9.2018 (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition), 27.8.2018 (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition) and order dated 17.1.2019 (Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition) were not issued. 17. 16. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential service benefits as if the orders dated 1.9.2018 (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition), 27.8.2018 (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition) and order dated 17.1.2019 (Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition) were not issued. 17. However, it is made clear that this judgment shall not preclude the competent authority from taking fresh decision in the matter of the petitioner but strictly in accordance with law after affording him an opportunity of hearing by conducting the full-fledged departmental inquiry and if such decision is taken in the case of the petitioner for conducting the departmental inquiry, the same shall be conducted and concluded with expedition preferably within a period of six months. 18. Writ petition is allowed. 19. No order as to costs.