JUDGMENT 1. This intra court appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner challenging the order dtd. 25/9/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14294/2021. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records are: The appellant was elected and appointed as a Solid and Liquid Waste Management (SLWM) Consultant for a period of one year on contract basis and accordingly, an appointment order was also issued on 28/2/2019. The appellant had thereafter reported to duty on 5/3/2019. The appellant's performance was found to be satisfactory and his remuneration was also increased and his services were continued for a period of one year from 20/2/2020 and subsequently, by order dtd. 6/4/2021 his services were further continued for a period of one year. 4. When the matter stood thus, the appellant received a show-cause notice dtd. 1/7/2021 alleging that respondent No.1 had received a complaint against the appellant to the effect that he had participated in the meeting of the purchase committee of the Gram Panchayath without authority and he had also failed to discharge his duty. The appellant had submitted a detailed reply to the said show-cause notice on 12/7/2021 denying the allegation made against him and also had stated that he was discharging his duty sincerely as per directions issued by the respondents. Thereafter, respondent No.2 had issued an order dtd. 26/7/2021 discharging the appellant from the services. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.14294/2021, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide its order dtd. 25/9/2021. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 had discharged the petitioner from service on the basis of certain allegations, and therefore, the order of discharge was stigmatic in nature. He submits that in the show-cause notice, there were certain allegations against the appellant and in the order of removal, respondent No.2 had stated that the explanation offered by the appellant in his reply to the show-cause notice was not satisfactory and thereafter, the order of discharge has been passed without holding any enquiry regarding the allegation made against the appellant. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarath Steel Tubes Ltd., and Others V/s Gujarath Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and others - AIR 1980 SC 1896 and submits that since the order of removal was punitive in nature, the same could not have been passed without enquiry. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the order at Annexure-A passed by respondent No.2 is a termination simplicitor, and therefore, no enquiry is required, to pass such an order. She submits that only the misconduct of the appellant has been referred in the order of termination and it is stated that his services are no longer required, and therefore, there is no need to hold any enquiry. In support of her arguments, she has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Another vs. Satyender Singh Rathore - (2005) 7 SCC 518 and in the case of Jai Singh vs. Union of India and others - (2006) 9 SCC 717 . 7. We have carefully appreciated the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record. 8. The undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed on contract basis as a Solid and Liquid Waste Management (SLWM) Consultant in the year 2019 and his services were continued from time to time. The show-cause notice was issued to him as per Annexure-S on 1/7/2021, wherein it is stated that he was unauthorisedly participating in the purchase committee meeting regarding implementation of Swatch Bharath Mission and it is also stated in the show-cause notice that the appellant was not discharging his duty satisfactorily. The appellant has given a detailed reply on 12/7/2021 denying the allegation made against him in the show-cause notice, and he had also stated that he never participated in the Gram Panchayath Committee as alleged in the show-cause notice. 9. The order of discharge was passed against the appellant on 26/7/2021 as per Annexure-X, wherein respondent No.2 has stated that the explanation offered by the appellant was not satisfactory and further observed that respondent No.1 has directed to terminate the services of the appellant. 9. The order of discharge was passed against the appellant on 26/7/2021 as per Annexure-X, wherein respondent No.2 has stated that the explanation offered by the appellant was not satisfactory and further observed that respondent No.1 has directed to terminate the services of the appellant. In the show-cause notice as per Annexure-S, the appellant was called upon to give his written explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of notice and he was also directed to submit explanation in person to respondent No.2, failing which further action was proposed against him. Reply to show cause was personally submitted by appellant on 12/7/2021. Respondent No.2 has thereafter passed the order of discharge vide Annexure-X on the ground that explanation offered by the appellant was not satisfactory and this order of discharge undisputedly is passed without holding any enquiry. Though learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the order of discharge was a termination simplicitor and there is no stigma attached to the said order, we are unable to accept the said contention since in the order of discharge, respondent No.2 has not only mentioned that the said order was passed as per the instructions of respondent No.1 but he has also stated that the explanation offered by the appellant to the show-cause notice dtd. 1/7/2021 was not satisfactory, and therefore, he has been discharged from service. 10. In the show-cause notice, there are certain allegations made against the appellant and he was asked to give his explanation and when respondent No.2 has found that the explanation was not satisfactory, it was necessary for him to hold an enquiry with regard to the allegation made against the appellant and he could not have passed an order of discharge without holding any enquiry. Since there are certain imputations made against the appellant in the show-cause notice as well as in the order of discharge passed by respondent No.2, in our considered view, it would amount to a stigma against the appellant, and therefore, respondent No.2 was not justified in discharging the appellant without holding any enquiry against him with regard to charge alleged against him. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarath Steel Tubes Ltd., (supra) has held that when the order of discharge passed against the workman is punitive in nature, it cannot be termed as a discharge simplicitor. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarath Steel Tubes Ltd., (supra) has held that when the order of discharge passed against the workman is punitive in nature, it cannot be termed as a discharge simplicitor. Respondent No.2, who had called for explanations regarding allegation made against the appellant in the show-cause notice, has clearly stated in the order of discharge that he was not satisfied with the explanation and thereafter he has proceeded to pass the order of discharge. Therefore, it is very clear that there is a nexus between the allegation made against the appellant and the order of discharge passed against him. In the show-cause notice, it was clearly stated that if respondent No.2 does not receive the explanation within the prescribed time, the consequences would follow and therefore it is very clear that the order of discharge is passed in furtherance of show-cause notice issued to the appellant. 12. The judgments relied upon by the respondents in the case of "Satyender Singh Rathore" (supra) and in the case of "Jai singh" (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said cases, the employer had referred to the allegation against the appellant while passing the order of discharge but in the case on hand, show-cause notice was issued to the appellant calling for his explanation with regard to the alleged misconduct and the order of discharge has been passed with an observation that the explanation offered to the show-cause notice was not satisfactory. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition. Accordingly, the following :- ORDER Writ appeal is allowed. Order dtd. 25/9/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14294/2021 is set aside. Consequently, the order dtd. 26/7/2021 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-X is quashed. The respondents are at liberty to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law pursuant to the show- cause notice vide Annexure-S dtd. 1/7/2021 and the reply vide Annexure-T dtd. 12/7/2021 submitted by the appellant to the said show-cause notice.