JUDGMENT & ORDER : (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. L. Gogoi, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The services of the appellant was terminated vide order dated 28.03.2023, which termination order was questioned by him before a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 4632/2023, who refused to interfere with the decision of the respondents. Hence, this appeal. 3 . The appellant was appointed as a Computer Assistant on contractual basis on 27.02.2009 but continued in the service till the time his service was dispensed with in the year 2023. While the appellant was working at Naharbari Gaon Panchayat in the district of Dhemaji, an FIR was lodged with the CID police station with respect to leakage of question paper of HSLC examination in General Science subject. During the course of investigation of the afore-noted case, namely, CID PS Case No.3/2023, which was registered under Sections 120 B/420/427/409 IPC read with Section 66 B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the name of the appellant surfaced. He was arrested on 17.03.2023 as his involvement in the paper leakage process was detected but was released on bail on 12.05.2023. 4. The Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam vide his order dated 28.03.2023, impugned in the writ petition, ordered that since the appellant was arrested in connection with CID PS Case No.3/2023, it became embarrassing for the employer. Thus invoking clause 11 of the Contract Agreement (wrongly referred to as clause 9 of the Contract Agreement), the services of the appellant was terminated with immediate effect. 5. Clause 11 of the Contract Agreement is being extracted here for the sake of completeness: “11. Thus invoking clause 11 of the Contract Agreement (wrongly referred to as clause 9 of the Contract Agreement), the services of the appellant was terminated with immediate effect. 5. Clause 11 of the Contract Agreement is being extracted here for the sake of completeness: “11. Termination of contract: The Agency reserves the right to terminate the contractual agreement at any point of time if it is found that the services rendered by the contractual staff is not satisfactory, or if it is found that any declaration of information furnished by him/her proves to be false or willfully suppressed, or if there is any breach of any of the terms and condition of this Term of Contractual Engagement, or if the contractual staff is found to be involved in any act of indiscipline or misconduct, or if the contractual staff is found to be involved in any act that may become embarrassing for the Agency, or if the contractual staff is absent from job for one week without any prior written sanction. In case funds are not available under the administrative contingency head from where the remunerations are paid, the contract may be terminated forthwith without any notice. The decision of the Agency in this regard shall be final and binding on the contractual staff and shall not be subject to challenge.” 6. The afore-noted clause 11 of the Contract Agreement clearly stipulates that if the contractual staff is found to be involved in any act that may become embarrassing for the Agency, the contract may be terminated forthwith without any notice and that the decision of the Agency in this regard would be final and binding on the contractual staff and shall not be subject to challenge. 7. The learned Single Judge relying on the afore-noted clause of the Contract Agreement dismissed the challenge to the termination order holding that no notice was required and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India had no application in the case of the appellant, who was only a contractual employee. 8. True it is that the appellant was a contractual employee and that his services could be terminated without resorting to the formality of issuance of notice to him. But what is important to be noted is that he had remained in service for a very long time and had served at different gaon panchayats wherever he was transferred during his tenure. But what is important to be noted is that he had remained in service for a very long time and had served at different gaon panchayats wherever he was transferred during his tenure. The contract was kept on being renewed. For all practical purposes, the employment had assumed a kind of permanency obligating the employer to at least ask for an explanation from the employee before terminating his service. 9. Though in many of the cases decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, it has been held that in the case of a contractual employee, there would be no necessity of serving any notice to the employee before termination, especially when he remains absent or his continuance in service would cause embarrassment to the employer but the trend of the later decisions are towards the insistence on the compliance of the principles of natural justice of being heard before being punished. 10. The termination order of the appellant was not termination simpliciter but it was punitive in its import. 11. The basis and foundation of the decision to terminate the appellant was his involvement in a criminal case. If the work of an employee is not found to be satisfactory and he is removed, this may not be called punitive as the removal is only the motive and not the foundation. The assessment about the performance is not done with the object of finding out any misconduct on the part of the officer. The assessment in that case would only be to take a decision whether he is fit to be retained or continued in service. In case of a preliminary enquiry against the contractual employee to find out prima facie evidence or material to initiate a regular departmental enquiry is also not punitive because the preliminary enquiry is not to find out misconduct but to find out whether the person could be proceeded against departmentally. 12. In the present case, the termination is based/founded on the involvement of the appellant in a criminal case in which he was arrested and remained in custody for a while . The misconduct here was the alleged suspected involvement of the appellant in question paper leakage of a public examination. 13. This is stigmatic and punitive. 14. 12. In the present case, the termination is based/founded on the involvement of the appellant in a criminal case in which he was arrested and remained in custody for a while . The misconduct here was the alleged suspected involvement of the appellant in question paper leakage of a public examination. 13. This is stigmatic and punitive. 14. In Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya vs. The State of Assam and others [WP(C) 2977/2023] and Sailendra Bora vs. The State of Assam and others [WP(C) 6680/2022], it has been held that even though the delinquent was on contractual appointment for a limited period but if the order of termination is stigmatic, it has to be preceded by a show-cause notice, eliciting his reply and only thereafter any decision could have been taken. 15. In a recent case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Brijesh Kumar and another [2024 SCC OnLIne SC 2282] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the order of termination of services of an employee, even if on contractual basis, which has been passed on account of alleged misconduct without following the principles of natural justice, the termination order being apparently stigmatic cannot be sustained without the observance of the principles of natural justice. 16. Seen from this angle, we find it expedient to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and to direct that the appellant be reinstated in service within 3 (three) weeks from the date of passing of this order and in case the respondents wish to proceed against the appellant, it would be open for them to do so afresh after complying with the due process of law, including adherence to the principles of natural justice; in which event it would be open for the State/respondents to take further consequential action in the matter, as may be deemed fit and proper under the law. If the State would not like to have the services of the appellant any more for whatever reason, the contract may not be renewed, or he be given a notice to explain the cause and thereafter, a decision be taken. 17. With the afore-noted observations and directions, this appeal is allowed.