JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned SC-IV. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18-09-24 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) no. 910 of 2024 whereby and whereunder, the prayer for quashing of the notification as contained in Memo No. 406 dated 12-02-2024, by which the writ petitioner/appellant has been removed from the post of Chairperson, Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights with immediate effect, has been rejected. 3. The factual aspects of the case as could be gathered from the averments made in the writ application is that a notice dated 14-07-2021 was published in the JAP-IT Recruitment Portal inviting applications for appointment to the vacant post of Chairperson and Members of Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights in the State of Jharkhand. The writ petitioner, being qualified, had applied for the post of Chairperson, Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights and being successful, he was appointed vide notification as contained in Memo No. 2666 dated 28-11-2022. The writ petitioner had accordingly given his joining on 16-12- 2022 and started discharging his duty. The writ petitioner was issued a show cause by letter as contained in Memo No. 2332 dated 18-08-2023 and was directed to file a show cause reply within two weeks. A show cause reply was submitted by the writ petitioner on 08-09-2023 denying the allegations levelled against him. To enquire into the allegations levelled against the writ petitioner, a four-member committee was constituted by order as contained in Memo No. 3102 dated 12-12-2023 and the writ petitioner was directed to appear before the committee on 21-12- 2023. A detailed show cause was also filed after which vide notification as contained in Memo No. 406 dated 12-02-2024, the writ petitioner was removed from the post of Member, Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights with immediate effect in pursuance of Section 7(2)(e) of the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. This notification was under challenge in W.P.(S) No. 916 of 2024 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18-09-2024 which is the order impugned to the present appeal. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. This notification was under challenge in W.P.(S) No. 916 of 2024 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18-09-2024 which is the order impugned to the present appeal. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the copy of the Enquiry Report dated 27-12-2013 was never served upon the writ petitioner which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The writ petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and the witnesses. 5. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned SC-IV has submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to defend his case and after considering the show cause submitted by him the order of removal of the writ petitioner from the post of Chairperson, Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights was passed. The learned Single Judge has correctly come to a conclusion that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. The impugned notification to the writ application as contained in Memo No. 406 dated 12-02-2024 has taken recourse to Section 7(2)(e) of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, while removing the writ petitioner from the post of Member, Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. Section 7 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 reads as under: “7. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the Chairperson may be removed from his office by an order of the Central Government on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Section 7 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 reads as under: “7. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the Chairperson may be removed from his office by an order of the Central Government on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may by order remove from office the Chairperson or any other Member, if the Chairperson or, as the case may be, such other Member,-- (a) is adjudged an insolvent; or (b) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office; or (c) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting; or (d) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or (e) has so abused his office as to render his continuance in office detrimental to the public interest; or (f) is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which in the opinion of the Central Government involves moral turpitude; or (g) is, without obtaining leave of absence from the Commission, absent from three consecutive meetings of the Commission. (3) No person shall be removed under this section until that person has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter.” 7. Section 7(2)(e)of the Act is stigmatic as it focuses on removal if the concerned person has abused his Office so as to render his continuation in Office detrimental to public interest. Before removing from Office, the principles of natural justice have to be followed which is embedded in Sub-section (3) of section 7 itself. 8. In the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Brajesh Kumar and Anr. reported in ( 2024) SCC online SC 2282 , it has been held as follows: “ 19. The services of the respondent have been determined solely on the ground of misconduct as alleged but without holding any regular inquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The termination order has been passed on the basis of some report which probably was not even supplied to the respondent. No show cause notice appears to have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of termination of his services, even if on contractual basis, has been passed on account of alleged misconduct without following the Principles of Natural Justice. No show cause notice appears to have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of termination of his services, even if on contractual basis, has been passed on account of alleged misconduct without following the Principles of Natural Justice. The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice.” 9. What falls from the above is that once an order has been passed which has the features of a stigma on the affected person irrespective of the nature of appointment, an opportunity of hearing has to be extended to such person. 10. On embracing the facts of this case with the law laid down what strikes us is the manner of removal of the writ petitioner from the post of Chairperson, Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. Based on some complaints made, a four-member committee was constituted which looked into the allegations made against the writ petitioner and on submission of the enquiry report, the writ petitioner was removed from his post. It is not in dispute that the enquiry report was never supplied to the writ petitioner and no second show cause notice was issued prior to the removal of the writ petitioner which prevented the writ petitioner to be aware of the insinuations against him as contained in the enquiry report. The act of the respondent(s) is also contrary to Section 7 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. The impugned order to the writ application being stigmatic, it was incumbent upon the authorities to give appropriate opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner as also supply him with the enquiry report which would have been in the teeth of the principles of natural justice. Mere issuance of a show cause and a hearing before the four- member enquiry committee would not suffice in the context of ample opportunity of hearing which the writ petitioner deserved. The learned Single Judge has committed an error by coming to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing and that the impugned order is well reasoned. As we have noted above, there has been a dearth of sufficient opportunity given to the writ petitioner to suitably reply to the findings of the enquiry report. The learned Single Judge has committed an error by coming to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing and that the impugned order is well reasoned. As we have noted above, there has been a dearth of sufficient opportunity given to the writ petitioner to suitably reply to the findings of the enquiry report. So far as the reasons in the notification dated 12-12-2024 as contained in Memo No. 406 is concerned, only the procedural aspect has been taken note of and there is no whisper about the contents of the enquiry report. The impugned notification dated 12-12-2024 is a thoroughly non-speaking order apart from the various inadequacies which have been pointed out by us above. 11. The learned Single Judge was in error in dismissing W.P.(S) No. 910 of 2024 dated 18-09-2024 and we, on the basis of the reasonings depicted by us, set aside the said order and consequently quash the notification dated 12-12-2024 as contained in Memo No. 406 and remand the matter back to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after supplying a copy of the enquiry report to the writ petitioner and upon diligently following the principles of natural justice. The aforesaid exercise should be concluded within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. This appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 13. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.