ORDER : M. NAGAPRASANNA, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order dated 12.04.2022, by which the services of the petitioner came to be terminated. 2. Heard Sri.M.S.Haravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.C.V.Angadi, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 3. The facts in brief germane are as follows: On 30.08.2010, the petitioner was appointed by the 3 rd respondent as a Community Development Expert to work in the 4 th respondent–Corporation on a contract basis. Owing to certain misconduct and allegations that surfaced after two years of service, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 08.03.2012. The petitioner challenged the said termination order before this Court in Writ Petition No.63207 of 2012, which came to be allowed by setting aside the order of termination. The State challenged the said order before the Division Bench. The Division Bench by its order dated 07.10.2021, dismissed the writ appeal. The State then challenges the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court grants an interim order of stay. 4. In the interregnum, the petitioner invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Owing to the notice issued in the contempt proceedings, the petitioner was reinstated into service. The petitioner therefore continued in service until the Apex Court disposed of the petition in the year 2022. 5. After disposal of the matter, the petitioner was allowed to work for a period of four years. Later, on 13.04.2022, the services of the petitioner were again terminated on the very same allegations that had arisen in the year 2011. It is this order that is called in question in the present petition. 6. The learned counsel, Sri M.S. Haravi, appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner has, throughout, been terminated without the conduct of any enquiry, notwithstanding the fact that the order of termination casts a serious stigma upon him. He would therefore submit that holding an enquiry was imperative, as the petitioner would have produced all the evidence necessary to establish his innocence. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order be set aside and the respondents be directed to hold an enquiry, with all consequential benefits. 7. He would therefore submit that holding an enquiry was imperative, as the petitioner would have produced all the evidence necessary to establish his innocence. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order be set aside and the respondents be directed to hold an enquiry, with all consequential benefits. 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP would defend the action of the State in terminating the services of the petitioner, taking this Court through the statement of objections and contending that serious misconduct is attributed to the petitioner and that he was a contract employee. In terms of the conditions of the contract, his services have been terminated. Therefore, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. The facts narrated above are all matters of record. The appointment of the petitioner was on 30.08.2010 in the 4 th respondent–Corporation on a contract basis. Owing to certain allegations, his services came to be terminated on 08.03.2012. The services of the petitioner were terminated without notice being made to or enquiry being conducted against the petitioner. 10. The petitioner challenged the termination of his services in Writ Petition No.63207/2012, which comes to be allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.03.2021 by the following order: 6. “It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Community Development Expert under the scheme titled as Urban Poverty Alleviation Cell in District Urban Development Cell and seven City Corporations. It is also not in dispute that the 1st respondent has issued a direction to continue the services of Community Development Experts on contract basis and that before termination of services of Community Development Expert prior approval should be taken by 1st respondent. 7. Respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dismissing the services of petitioner on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. The order dismissing the petitioner attaching stigma is without issuing notice and holding an enquiry. Though the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, he becomes entitled to constitutional protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 7. Respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dismissing the services of petitioner on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. The order dismissing the petitioner attaching stigma is without issuing notice and holding an enquiry. Though the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, he becomes entitled to constitutional protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It is well settled in law that the order of termination of services even that of an employee appointed on contract basis and if the order of dismissal was made on the ground of unsatisfactory performance of services without issuing notice and holding an enquiry cannot be distinguished. In the appointment order at Annexure-B, there is no clause reserving liberty with the respondents so as to dispense with the services of petitioner on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. Hence, the order passed by respondent No.2 dismissing the petitioner from service on contract basis is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed; ii. The impugned order dated 9.3.2012 passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 8.3.2012 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexures – G and G1 are quashed; iii. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as Community Development Expert in Bellary District with 50% of back salary and other service benefits. Liberty is reserved with respondents to initiate action against petitioner for the alleged unsatisfactory performance in accordance with law. iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to reinstate the petitioner into services and also pay all the monetary benefits for which he is entitled to within two months from the date of receipt of cop of this order.” (emphasis supplied) 11. The State challenged the same in Writ Appeal No.100221/2021. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal by its order: 3. “Learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants/State vehemently contended that there is no infirmity in the order dated 9.3.2012 at Annexure-G, since respondent was appointed on contract basis and he is not entitled to be served with notice and other formalities before terminating his services from the post of Community Development Expert. Therefore, direction of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the nature of appointment. It is further submitted that after termination of 1st respondent's He further service, some other person was appointed. Therefore, direction of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the nature of appointment. It is further submitted that after termination of 1st respondent's He further service, some other person was appointed. submitted that as on this day, the post of Community Development Expert is not existing in the Ballari City Corporation, therefore, question of reinstating the 1 respondent does not arise. 4. On perusal of the order dated 9.3.2012, it is evident that respondent No.1 has been terminated from his service without providing an opportunity of hearing and further communication, it is evident that such removal is with reference to dissatisfaction of his work. In the result, he is entitled to show-cause notice followed by domestic enquiry if any. Such formalities are required to be complied in respect of contract employees as his right to continue in the post of Community Development Expert has been taken away abruptly. The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again held that any order affecting one's right, in such an event, he/she should be heard in the matter. 5. In the light of these facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants have not made out any case to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.3.2021 passed in WP No.63207/2012. However, liberty is reserved to the concerned respondents/authorities to take back the 1st respondent herein and thereafter proceed in accordance with law having regard to the fact that as on this day, the post of Community Development Expert is not existing with the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, Ballari City office of Corporation. 6. With the aforesaid observations, writ appeal stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.” 12. Against by this, the State preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. In the SLP, an interim order of stay came to be granted. 13. In the interregnum, the petitioner invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Pursuant to the contempt proceedings, the petitioner was reinstated on 19.01.2022. The order of reinstatement reads as follows: 14. The Apex Court by its order dated 26.07.2024, disposed of the SLP by the following order: “ ORDER 1. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. We however reiterate the directions issued by the High Court that the disciplinary proceedings can be commenced and concluded afresh as against the respondent(s). The Apex Court by its order dated 26.07.2024, disposed of the SLP by the following order: “ ORDER 1. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. We however reiterate the directions issued by the High Court that the disciplinary proceedings can be commenced and concluded afresh as against the respondent(s). We make it clear that the present orders directing reinstatement and/or payments made to the respondent(s) will be subject to the outcome of the proceedings; those proceedings shall be conducted and decided on their own merits. We have not expressed any opinion on that issue. 2. Leaving this liberty to the petitioner herein, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 15. The liberty reserved by the Division Bench was permitted to be exercised by the Supreme Court in favour of the State. 16. In the interregnum, owing to the stay of the reinstatement order granted earlier, the petitioner came to be terminated from service yet again. 17. It is this termination that is called in question in the present petition. One common thread that runs through all these proceedings is that the petitioner has been terminated without holding an enquiry. 18. In the normal course, for a contract employee, an enquiry may not be necessary. However, the issue in the present case is whether the termination is a termination simpliciter or a termination founded on allegations of misconduct. 19. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court by order dated 16.03.2021 observes that the services of the petitioner comes to be terminated solely on account of grave misconduct attributed to the petitioner Therefore, the State could not have, even in the case of a contractual employee, terminated his services without holding an enquiry, particularly when such termination casts a stigma. 20. Jurisprudence is replete with a plethora of judgments by the Apex Court and this Court holding that an enquiry is imperative even in the case of a contractual employee when the termination is stigmatic. 21. In the case at hand, the order of termination undoubtedly casts a stigma, as it not only indicates that the petitioner’s service was unsatisfactory, but also allege grave misconduct involving misuse of cheques and misappropriation of funds. 22. In the teeth of these facts, an enquiry ought to have been conducted against the petitioner. 21. In the case at hand, the order of termination undoubtedly casts a stigma, as it not only indicates that the petitioner’s service was unsatisfactory, but also allege grave misconduct involving misuse of cheques and misappropriation of funds. 22. In the teeth of these facts, an enquiry ought to have been conducted against the petitioner. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to allow the petition, albeit in part, with a direction to the respondents to hold an enquiry and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 23. For the purpose of conducting the enquiry, the petitioner shall be reinstated into service. All other consequential benefits flowing from such reinstatement shall depend upon the outcome of the enquiry. 24. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The order of termination is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the State to conduct an enquiry, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order. iii. All consequential reliefs flowing from the reinstatement shall depend upon the outcome of the enquiry to be conducted by the State. iv. For the purpose of conducting the enquiry, the petitioner shall be forthwith reinstated into service. During the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner shall be paid salary and all other service benefits. The aforesaid direction regarding reinstatement shall be complied with within eight weeks. It is open to the respondents to hold the enquiry as directed and regulate the procedure thereon in accordance with law. In the event the State would not exercise the liberty that the liberty of holding an enquiry as is directed and the enquiry is not held in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order, the petitioner becomes entitled to 50% of the back wages. Ordered accordingly.