ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- 10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 17 10 2014 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing respondent-authorities to reinstate the petitioner on the post of District Programme Manager with all consequential benefits. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Central Government had started a National Health Programme under the name of National Rural Health Mission which has been run by the National Health Systems Resource Center, New Delhi, for the various States and different districts under the said Mission. It was in pursuance of the recruitment for the various posts under the said Mission that an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment to the various posts including the post of District Programme Manager. The petitioner pursuant to the said advertisement submitted his candidature and after due consideration by appointing authority, the petitioner was appointed on the post of District Programme Manager vide order dated 6.2.2009 and was posted at Dantewada for a period of two years. The said appointment was purely a contractual appointment and was governed by the existing rules as were framed by the Mission Director, State of Chhattisgarh. Copy of the rules framed by the Mission Director in the year 2011 is also annexed as Annexure P/3. The said rules prescribe the mode of appointment, qualification and eligibility for appointment, service conditions and punishment etc. The said Rules clearly by reference incorporated the conditions as are prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2004. The petitioner discharged his services on the said post without any complaint and to the best of his capability in satisfaction of one and all. It was, therefore, that for consideration of his confidential report (C.R.), the contract period was enhanced and the petitioner continued to work on the post of District Programme Manager, Dantewada. It is pertinent to mention that appointments are made at the State Level as well as at the Divisional Level. At the Divisional Level, the appointment is to be made by the Secretary, who is the District Medical and Health Officer. It is pertinent to mention that appointments are made at the State Level as well as at the Divisional Level. At the Divisional Level, the appointment is to be made by the Secretary, who is the District Medical and Health Officer. The selection is to be carried out by the Selection Committee and it is pursuant to the recommendation of the Collector that the appointments are being made. It is in this connection that appointments to the post of Assistant Grade-III and to that of Data Entry Operator (contract basis) were to be made under the said Mission. Vide letter dated 06.01.2014, the Deputy Collector directed the Chief Medical and Health Officer to issue appointment orders for 7 eligible candidates whose names were being forwarded vide the said letter. In the said letter, it was clarified as against the reserved post of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, no candidate was selected. Pursuant to the said letter, the appointment order for four candidates were issued vide order dated 20.01.2014. It was thereafter that vide letter dated 01.02.2014 issued from the Office of Deputy Collector addressed to Chief Medical and Health Officer, it was directed that against the left over vacancies, three candidates (two from Scheduled Tribes and one from Scheduled Caste) were proposed vide the said letter. This letter, in fact, was a forged document because vide the previous letter dated 6.1.2014, it was clarified that against the posts reserved for the SC and ST, no candidates were selected. Unfortunately, without proper examination of the matter, the Chief Medical and Health Officer issued the appointment order for the said three candidates vide his order dated 06.02.2014, as such show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and others. The petitioner submitted his clarification against the show-cause notice before Mission Director on 07.10.2014, however, the respondent authorities without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 whereby the petitioner has been terminated from service on account of the said allegations of fabrication and misuse of his official position, against which the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have acted in an absolutely highhanded and capricious manner while passing the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 terminating the petitioner. 3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have acted in an absolutely highhanded and capricious manner while passing the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 terminating the petitioner. The respondent-authorities have failed to ensure that the petitioner was afforded a proper opportunity in defending himself against the charges leveled, on account of which his services were terminated. The respondent- authorities suo moto conducted an enquiry into the complaints/leveled against him with regard to appointment of three candidates. The said enquiry was a fact-finding enquiry and was not a departmental enquiry contemplated either for imposition of major or minor penalty. The said enquiry was a unilateral enquiry conducted in the nature of a preliminary enquiry and cannot be said to be an enquiry conducted against the petitioner for imposition of penalty (minor or major). Under the Rules 2011, it is obligatory for the respondent-authorities to hold an enquiry before imposition of major punishment in the nature of termination. The said rules though stand modified by the Rules 2011 but then to the said extent the Rules 2012 are silent, and therefore, the obligation to hold an enquiry still operates. The respondent- authorities were, therefore, obliged under the Rules to have conducted an enquiry against the petitioner granting him full opportunity to defend himself against the said allegations. The enquiry which was conducted was only a fact finding enquiry without any allegations being leveled against the petitioner. Once the authorities concluded that the petitioner committed misconduct, it was obligatory for the respondent- authorities to have ensured an enquiry granting full opportunity to the petitioner informing him about the contents of the allegations against him, and thereafter, impose the punishment of termination. The respondent-authorities unfortunately did not any departmental enquiry for imposition of either a major or minor penalty. Only for the sake of satisfying compliance of principles of natural justice, show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner after it was concluded that the petitioner had committed misconduct. The said notice was only a sham as the respondent- authorities had already concluded predetermined and decided the punishment which was sought to be imposed on the petitioner after having presumed the guilt of the allegations leveled against him. The said notice was only a sham as the respondent- authorities had already concluded predetermined and decided the punishment which was sought to be imposed on the petitioner after having presumed the guilt of the allegations leveled against him. The impugned order dated 17.10.2014 has been issued in utter violation of the principles of the natural justice notwithstanding the fact that the reason for which the said order has been issued casts aspersion on the integrity and credibility of the petitioner in discharging his services. Since the impugned order being civil consequences, it was incumbent upon the respondent-authorities to have afforded and granted the petitioner due opportunity to defend the charges and the allegations leveled against him. The show- cause notice dated 12.09.2014 cannot be termed to be an opportunity to satisfy the principles of natural justice since the said notice is only a sham as the respondent-authorities had already concluded the guilt against the petitioner. The said notice cannot be termed to be a reasonable opportunity which is granted to the petitioner. The order of termination dated 17.10.2014 is not an order of termination simplicitor but is an order casts aspersion on the petitioner As a result, the respondent-authorities ought to have granted the petitioner a due opportunity before issuance of the said impugned order Because, the petitioner has been made a scapegoat in order to protect certain other high rank officials who are actually guilty for the said mischief In the fact finding enquiry, it would be clear that the Chief Medical and Health Officer was also held responsible but then the respondent-authorities had taken a soft stand as far as the Chief Medical and Health Officer is concerned by not even issuing show-cause notice to enquire into his conduct. The appointment orders were also issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officers and even the alleged letter dated 1.2 2014 was addressed to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, which was received in photocopy without there being the original order The Chief Medical and Health Officer without enquiring into the said order, proceeded and issued order of appointment. Despite the said fact, no action has been taken against the Chief Medical and Health Officer. Despite the said fact, no action has been taken against the Chief Medical and Health Officer. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent-authorities, in order to save the high ranked officials, have made the petitioner scapegoat though the petitioner was neither involved nor concerned with the issuance of the order of appointment of the said three candidates The respondent-authorities have acted in a highly arbitrary and discriminatory manner wherein without any material and without any proper basis, the allegations held to have been proved against the petitioner without having conducted any departmental enquiry The petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of termination only on the basis of presumption and surmises without there being any actual material to demonstrate involvement of the petitioner in commission of any misconduct. The impugned order dated 17.10.2014 is therefore, absolutely bad and deserves to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Bank of India & Others Versus Palak Modi & Another reported in (2013) 3 SCC 607 . 4. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submission made by the petitioner's counsel and jointly submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of District Programme Manager, NRHM in the Office of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Dantewada in the year 2009 on contractual basis and thereafter the contract period of the petitioner was extended from time to time. When it came to the knowledge of authorities and also due to publishing of news in daily newspaper, the Collector after taking cognizance of the said misconduct of forgery appointed the Additional Collector Shri S.R. Sahu as the enquiry officer. In furtherance to the direction of the Collector the Enquiry Officer had conducted a threadbare enquiry in respect to the appointment and submitted its enquiry report on 01/08/2014 and in the enquiry the enquiry officer has come to the conclusion that the petitioner forged the document dated 01/02/2014 and is liable for the same. It has also come in the statement of Smt. Ishwari Pandey, Ku. Priyanka Vishwas and Sukhram Bhaskar that they had not made any application for appointment to the said post. Upon receiving enquiry report a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12/09/2014, of which the petitioner had submitted its reply on 07/10/2014. It has also come in the statement of Smt. Ishwari Pandey, Ku. Priyanka Vishwas and Sukhram Bhaskar that they had not made any application for appointment to the said post. Upon receiving enquiry report a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12/09/2014, of which the petitioner had submitted its reply on 07/10/2014. The reply submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory and therefore his services were terminated vide impugned order dated 17/10/2014. It is thus clear that the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity of hearing before passing the order impugned and thus there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that in the enquiry report dated 01/08/2014 it has come in the statement of witness No. 8 & 9 namely James Bek and Anil Netam that the appointment order has got been prepared by the petitioner, therefore involvement of the petitioner in the process of forging the document cannot be denied. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner amounted to gross misconduct which enabled him some undue benefit. The punishment of removal vide order impugned dated 17/10/2014 imposed upon the petitioner is an appropriate punishment. Therefore, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. This is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was appointed on the contractual basis by order dated 06.02.2009 (Annexure-P/2). This appointment was governed by the existing rules framed by the Mission Director in the year 2011, annexed as Annexure-P/3 and after that vide letter dated 06.01.2014, 6 candidates were recommended for appointment and appointment letter was issued for four candidates vide letter dated 20.01.2014 (Annexure-P/5) and vide letter dated 01.02.2014 (Annexure-P/6), three names were proposed. On complaint being made with regard to the fact that letter dated 01.02.2014 issued by the Deputy Collector is a forged document, as such on the direction of the Collector, a fact finding enquiry was instituted and the Additional Collector on 01.08.2014 submitted its detailed report, thereafter petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 12.09.2014 alleging that the petitioner was found to have fabricated the letter issued by the Deputy Collector as such why his service should not be terminated and after that petitioner has filed his reply and thereafter vide impugned order (Annexure-P/1) he has been terminated from service. 7. 7. It is clear from the appointment order dated 06.02.2009 Annexure-P/2 that the petitioner was appointed on the contractual basis for 2 years. As per the petitioner, punishment should be governed under Clause 4 of the Rules contained in Annexure-P/3. Clause 4 of the Rules is as under:- ^^4- vkpj.k fu;e o 'kkfLr jk"Vªh; xzkeh.k LokLF; fe'ku varxZr lafonk inksa ij dk;Zjr vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh ij NŒxŒ flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e 1965 ykxw gksaxs vkSj mudk mYy?kau fd;s tkus ij y?kq 'kkfLr ds :i esa vFkZn.M] tks ÁR;sd dnkpj.k gsrq vf/kdre 1]000@& :i;s gksxk ,oa nh?kZ 'kkfLr ds :i esa lsok ls c[kkZLr djus dk vf/kdkj Ákf/kd`r vf/kdkjh dk gksxkA 'kkfLr vkjksfir djus ls iwoZ lEcfU/kr dks lquk tkosxk ,oa laf{kIr tkap ÁfØ;k viukbZ tkosxhA** 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that before passing the order impugned, a show-cause notice of misconduct was issued against the petitioner, as such Annexure-P/1 is not a simplicitor order and before passing this order, opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to the petitioner. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in the matter of Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation Versus Paramjeet Singh, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 250, held in paras 8 & 10 as under:- “8. We find merit in the submission. The terms of the appointment indicate that the respondent was on a purely contractual appointment and that the services could be dispensed with without notice at any stage. 10. Having regard to the terms of the contractual engagement, we are of the view that the action of the appellant cannot be faulted. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. In consequence, the writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” 10. It is clear that before passing the impugned order, appropriate notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner filed his reply as well. It is also clear from the rules vide Annexure-P/3 that before passing the major penalty in case of contractual appointee, only summary enquiry is essential and in petitioner's case appropriate notice was given to the petitioner and it is clear from Annexure-P/1 that the same is a simple termination order. The appointment order indicates that the petitioner was on contractual appointment. 11. The appointment order indicates that the petitioner was on contractual appointment. 11. In view of the foregoing discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 12. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.