JUDGMENT : This intracourt appeal seeks to call in question learned Single Judge's order dated 14.10.2022 whereby, W.P.No.24361/2016 (S-DIS) filed by the 6th respondent- Sunil kumar having been favoured, his dismissal order came to be set-aside with a direction for reinstatement sans back-wages. Of course, liberty is also reserved to the appellant-Panchayat herein 'to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law, on the allegation contained in the order of dismissal'. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the respondent employee was not in the regular employment and that he was only working on contract basis and therefore, his discharge could not have been faltered by the learned Single Judge. Learned Additional Government Advocate appears for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the Appeal Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as regardless of the status of an employee, no stigmatic dismissal order can be passed without holding a minimum inquiry, more particularly when allegations are denied by him. A look at the order of dismissal makes it abundantly clear that the same is heavily stigmatic of the employee concerned. The wild allegations are that he with a mala fide intent has destroyed the recorded footage's relating to election to the post of President of the Panchayat and that he has betrayed the trust. 3. Dismissing a person from service, whether his engagement is on regular basis or on contract basis, has serious consequences not only on his livelihood but also reputation which is a precondition for other employment. In our system, the principles of natural justice are treated as part of Article 14 vide Cantonment Board v. Taramani Devi AIR 1992 SC 61 . Therefore, no person can be condemned unheard. In Biblical literature, even God is said to have given an opportunity of hearing to Adam & Eve before punishing them for eating the forbidden fruit in the Eden garden. That being the sanctity of audi alteram partem principle, the learned Single Judge has rightly set at naught the dismissal order of the employee. He has done justice to both the sides inasmuch as he has treated the period of dismissal as dies non and thereby, denied arrears of wages. Added, liberty is also reserved for holding inquiry if the employer so desires. He has done justice to both the sides inasmuch as he has treated the period of dismissal as dies non and thereby, denied arrears of wages. Added, liberty is also reserved for holding inquiry if the employer so desires. The impugned order thus has brought about a just result, regardless of arguable lacunae therein. Such orders do not merit challenge. In the above circumstances, the appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly, dismissed, costs having been made easy.