JUDGMENT ALOK ARADHE,J. - This intra Court appeal has been filed against an order dtd. 26/11/2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12894/2015 by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 has been allowed and the order dtd. 23/3/2015 by which aforesaid respondent's service has been displaced, has been set aside. The respondent No.1 has also been held entitled to monetary benefits. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondent No.1 was appointed on a contract basis as Taluka Nodal Officer. By an order dtd. 23/3/2015, the services of the respondent No.1 was displaced from the post of Taluka Nodal Officer. The respondent No.1 challenged the aforesaid order in a writ petition inter alia on the ground that the order is stigmatic in nature and is not proceeded by an enquiry. The learned Single Judge, by an order dtd. 26/11/2020, has quashed the aforesaid order and has held that the principle of no work no pay shall not apply to the facts of the case. The respondent No.1 was also held entitled to monetary benefits. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the services of the respondent No.1 has been terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the order of appointment and therefore, no enquiry was required to be held. Alternatively, it is submitted that the respondent No.1 had admitted the allegations made against him and therefore, on admitted facts, the impugned order displacing the services of the respondent No.1, has been passed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. The legal position is well settled that in case an order is stigmatic in nature, same has to be proceeded by an enquiry. In the instant case, from the impugned order dtd. 23/3/2015, it is evident that it is stigmatic in nature inasmuch as it states that the respondent No.1 had made a statement against the Government and had failed to achieve the target fixed for him as Taluka Nodal Officer. Therefore, the order ought to have been proceeded by an enquiry. In the instant case, from the impugned order dtd. 23/3/2015, it is evident that it is stigmatic in nature inasmuch as it states that the respondent No.1 had made a statement against the Government and had failed to achieve the target fixed for him as Taluka Nodal Officer. Therefore, the order ought to have been proceeded by an enquiry. The learned Single Judge has therefore, rightly quashed the impugned order and has reserved the liberty to the appellant herein to conduct an enquiry and to pass a fresh order. We do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.