JUDGMENT : SUMAN SHYAM, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka, Mr. M.J. Quadir, Mr. A.K. Baruah and Mr. T. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in this batch of writ petitions. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam representing the official respondents. Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, Assam has appeared on behalf of the State. 2. The question of law involved in this batch of writ petitions is one and the same, which is “Can the service of a contractual employee be terminated without issuing a show cause notice when the order of termination is ex-facie stigmatic?” The above issue, pertaining to contractual employees of the Panchayat & Rural Development Department, had been gone into in great details in the case of Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya vs. State of Assam and others [WP (C) No. 2977/2023] whereby, it was held by this Court that such a course of action would be impermissible in the eyes of law. Notwithstanding the same, it appears that the departmental authorities have once again adopted a similar approach for terminating the services of the present writ petitioners, who were engaged under the department on contractual basis. The facts and circumstances involved in WP(C) No.4061/2023, are referred to herein below for the purpose of addressing the legal issues involved in all these writ petitions. 3. The writ petitioner in WP(C) No.4061/2023 was engaged as an Accountant-cum-Computer Operator Gelabil Gaon Panchayat of Golaghat South Development Block vide engagement letter dated 29.12.2014. His appointment was on contractual basis for a period of 6 (six) months. However, after the expiry of the period of six months the petitioner continued in service thus, signaling an automatic renewal of the contract beyond six months. On 02.01.2016 the petitioner had entered into another contractual engagement for a further period of six months. In between, the petitioner had been transferred from one place to another. However, while serving as Gaon panchayat Coordinator under the Tulshibori Gaon Panchayat, some dissatisfied persons of the Gaon Panchayat had lodged a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon alleging that the petitioner had indulged in malpractices by forging job cards and using the name of different persons for withdrawing money and misappropriating the same. Based on such complaint, Bhelowguri P.S. Case No.29/2023 was registered under Sections 120-B/420/409/468/34 of the IPC. Based on such complaint, Bhelowguri P.S. Case No.29/2023 was registered under Sections 120-B/420/409/468/34 of the IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 12.05.2023 but was subsequently released on bail on 12.06.2023. After his release on bail, the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam issued the impugned order dated 28.06.2023 terminating the contractual engagement of the petitioner. 4. In the order of termination, it has been clearly mentioned that the arrest and subsequent police custody of the petitioner had become embarrassing to his employer. Accordingly, his services were terminated. However, the order of termination dated 28.06.2023 was admittedly not preceded by any show cause notice. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court inter-alia contending the order of termination from service is stigmatic in nature and therefore, the same ought to be preceded by a show cause notice. To drive home the above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners have heavily relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya (supra). 5. The learned departmental counsel Mr. S. Dutta, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer made in the batch of writ petitions by contending that since it is a contractual employment and considering the fact that the contract agreement did permit termination of service with one months notice, no fault can be found with the order of termination merely because the petitioner was not served with any show cause notice. According to Mr. Dutta, the arrest and police custody of the petitioner, in all these writ petitions, is not the foundation but the motive for the orders of termination and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & another, (1986) 2 SCR 278 there is no justifiable ground for this Court to interfere with the impugned orders of termination. In support of his above argument Mr. Dutta has also relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court :- 1. State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 11 SCC 743 2. State of Haryana v. Satyendra Singh Rathore, (2005) 7 SCC 518 3. Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of India, (1953) 1 SCC 420 4. Union Territory of Tripura v. Gopal Chandra Dutta Choudhury, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 115 5. Rajaasthan SRTC v. Paramjeet Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 250 6. State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 11 SCC 743 2. State of Haryana v. Satyendra Singh Rathore, (2005) 7 SCC 518 3. Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of India, (1953) 1 SCC 420 4. Union Territory of Tripura v. Gopal Chandra Dutta Choudhury, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 115 5. Rajaasthan SRTC v. Paramjeet Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 250 6. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have also gone through the materials available on record. 7. The facts involved in all these writ petitions are not disputed. It is the admitted position of fact that the services of all the writ petitioners, who were originally engaged on contractual basis under the Panchayat & Rural Development Department, were terminated merely on the ground that they were all arrested and detained in police custody in connection with complaints lodged against them. However, the respective orders of termination from service were issued without serving any prior notice. It is not the case of the department that any criminal charge has been established against any of the petitioners. Since the learned departmental counsel has placed heavy reliance on the termination clause in the contract agreement to submit that since the clause in the contract itself permitted such a recourse, no fault can be found in the order of termination, I deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant clause i.e. Clause 12 in the contract as hereunder :- “12. Termination of Contract :- The Employer reserves the right to terminate the hired agreement at any point of time if it is found that the services rendered by the hired employee 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 terms of Contractual Engagement, or if the hired employee is found to be involved in any act that may become embarrassing for the Employer in this regard shall be final and binding on the contractual employee and shall not be subject to challenge.” 8. As has been noted herein above, a similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya (supra). As has been noted herein above, a similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya (supra). It was a case where a computer assistant appointed under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department on contractual basis was terminated on the ground that an enquiry in connection with alleged misappropriation of fund under the MGNREGA and PMAY-G was initiated against the employee. Contending that the order of termination was stigmatic in nature, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.2977/2023. After taking note of the facts of the case, this Court had allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order of termination from service with a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service in a time bound manner. Liberty was, however, given to the departmental authorities to proceed against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law by serving prior notice indicating the specific charge brought against him, if so advised. The observations made by this Court in Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya (supra), relevant for the purpose of this case, are reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “It is no doubt correct that in case of a contractual engagement, the terms and conditions of the contract would govern by the service conditions of the employee. In the present case, the contract agreement signed by the petitioner does have a clause permitting termination of the contract at any point of time if the services rendered by the contractual staff was not found to be satisfactory. However, what is to be noted herein that bare perusal of the impugned order of termination demonstrates on the face of the record that the same was issued on the basis of findings of the enquiry proceeding conducted behind the back of the petitioner wherein, it had been projected that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. Therefore, the order of termination of service of the petitioner dated 30/10/2021 is not only based on allegation of misconduct but the same is also stigmatic on the face of the records. In other words, the impugned order of termination dated 30/10/2021 was founded on allegation of misconduct. However, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard in the matter. Therefore, it is a clear case where the respondents have acted in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. In other words, the impugned order of termination dated 30/10/2021 was founded on allegation of misconduct. However, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard in the matter. Therefore, it is a clear case where the respondents have acted in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. The order of termination from service issued to the petitioner has the trappings of an order of dismissal/removal from service. Therefore, such an order could not have been issued without giving the employee an opportunity of being heard, even if the same pertains to a temporary and / or contractual employee. This is for the simple reason that such an action, besides causing serious prejudice to the interest of the employee, would also have a bearing on the prospect of his future employments.” 9. In another decision rendered by a coordinate Bench in the case of Sailendra Bora Vs. State of Assam & others [WP (C) No. 6680/2022] similar view was taken by the learned Single Judge whereby, the order of termination served upon the contractual employee, which was found to be stigmatic, was interfered with by the Court on the ground that the same was not preceded by an opportunity of hearing. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case involved in this batch of writ petitions this Court does not find any justifiable ground to take a different view as compared to the view taken in Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya (supra) and Sailendra Bora (supra). Moreover, in another decision of this Court rendered in the case of Mrigen Kalita Vs. North East Regional Institute of Parliamentary Studies Training and Research & others, 2012 (4) GLT 686 the learned Single Judge has categorically held that even if an employment is of temporary nature, the principle of natural justice cannot altogether be given a gobye more so when the order of termination is accompanied by circumstances carrying a stigma against the employee. After going through the decision rendered in the case of Mrigen Kalita (supra) this Court is further fortified to reaffirm the law laid down in the case of Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya (supra). 11. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in Jan Saikia Vs. After going through the decision rendered in the case of Mrigen Kalita (supra) this Court is further fortified to reaffirm the law laid down in the case of Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya (supra). 11. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in Jan Saikia Vs. State of Assam and others [ WP (C) No. 4632/2023] whereby the learned Single Judge had observed that since the order of termination was in accordance with the clause contained in the contract agreement, the same was permissible. However, I find that in the decision rendered in Jan Saikia (supra), the learned Single Judge has not considered as to what would be the impact of termination from service without issuing a show cause notice when the order of termination itself is stigmatic in nature. Moreover, the decision in the case of Jan Saikia (supra) also appears to have been rendered without taking note of the law laid down in the case of Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya (supra), which projected a completely contrary view. 12. Coming to the decisions relied upon by Mr. Dutta, learned departmental counsel, in none of those cases the question as to whether a stigmatic order of termination on a contractual employee could be issued without complying with the principles of natural justice was the subject matter of discussion. If that be so, the ratio laid down in those decisions would, in the opinion of this Court, be of no assistance to the learned departmental counsel in the facts of the present case. 13. For the reasons stated herein above, all these writ petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned orders of termination involved in the respective writ petitions stand set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate all the writ petitioners back in service within three weeks from today. Subject to reinstatement, it would be open for the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioners, individually, after complying with the due process of law including the adherence to the principles of natural justice, in which event it would be open for the authorities to take further consequential action in the matter as may be deemed fit and proper under the law. 14. With the above observation, all the writ petitions stands disposed of. The parties to bear their own cost.