Order : (DINESH MEHTA, J.) 1. The present writ petition impugns the order dated 31.01.2025, which has been passed by the respondent No.4- Principal and Controller, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, whereby the petitioner’s service has been brought to an end citing her services have been unsatisfactory. 2. The facts, in a nut-shell, are that pursuant to the sanction letter dated 05.04.2022, an advertisement came to be issued. And after undergoing due selection process, the petitioner was offered appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II on Urgent Temporary Basis (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UTB’). 3. As per the facts pleaded, a complaint was filed by one Pushpendra Rao, alleging that some staff member of the respondents had taken a sum of Rs.2,200/- as a bribe. On further probe, it was alleged that it was the petitioner who had taken the bribe. 4. It has been contended by the petitioner that owing to undue pressure or duress, she had to write a letter dated 10.01.2025 admitting the acceptance of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant. 5. According to the petitioner, when she came to learn that the respondents are going to terminate her services, she made a representation on 31.01.2025 (Annexure-8) and submitted that she had tendered her apology on the advice or persuasion of the higher officers so as to give an end to the dispute and prayed that she be exonerated, as assured. 6. Mr. Khileree, learned counsel argued that the respondent No.4 has arbitrarily terminated her services vide order dated 31.01.2025, recording a finding that the petitioner had taken bribe of Rs.2000/-. 7. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner’s appointment as UTB is governed by the Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Sub-ordinate Service Rules , 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1965) and therefore, unless an inquiry is conducted, services of petitioner cannot be brought to an end. 8. While denying the allegation of having accepted the bribe, learned counsel argued that the letter dated 10.01.2025 was essentially a letter of apology in order bring an end to the dispute and such letter cannot be taken to be acceptance of guilt. 9. 8. While denying the allegation of having accepted the bribe, learned counsel argued that the letter dated 10.01.2025 was essentially a letter of apology in order bring an end to the dispute and such letter cannot be taken to be acceptance of guilt. 9. Learned counsel argued that true it is that condition No.9 of the appointment order dated 06.08.2022 provides that if the service of UTB employee is not found satisfactory, he/she shall be forthwith terminated but the facts of the case in hand shows that it was not a case of unsatisfactory services but was a case of misconduct on the allegation of having accepted bribe. 10. Learned counsel also argued that the order impugned being stigmatic is liable to be quashed. 11. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment dated 06.05.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tarachand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.70/2019 ). 12. Learned counsel further submitted that though the complainant himself had not only written on the Sampark Portal and but has written another letter dated 04.02.2025 to the effect that said complaint was filed under a misconception, yet the respondents have not considered the same. 13. Mr. NS Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand submitted that the petitioner is an employee on Urgent Temporary Basis (UTB) and nature of her engagement/ employement is entirely of different nature. He submitted that since the petitioner is not on regular roll of the respondents, disciplinary proceedings as envisaged under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules , 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CCA Rules, 1958) cannot be undertaken. He added that services of an employee engaged on UTB can be brought to an end as provided under condition No.9 of the appointment order if his/her services is not satisfcatory. 14. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in the face of the letter dated 10.01.2025, which the petitioner had written, no opportunity of hearing was required, while maintaining that the petitioner was called upon to give her explanation on phone. He argued that the mandate of complying with principles of natural justice has been observed, which is proved from the fact that the petitioner proceeded to make another representation on 31.01.2025. 15. It was alternatively argued by Mr. He argued that the mandate of complying with principles of natural justice has been observed, which is proved from the fact that the petitioner proceeded to make another representation on 31.01.2025. 15. It was alternatively argued by Mr. Rajpurohit, learned AAG that even if the formality of issuing a notice was observed, the same would have made no difference as the facts were admitted. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged on UTB in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1965. Whether the CCA Rules, 1958 would apply to petitioner’s case or not is a debatable question. According to this Court, observance of the principles of natural justice cannot be given a go-bye. Even in the cases of contractual employees, the observance of the principles of natural justice has been held to be mandatory. 18. According to this Court, the principles of natural justice are basic tenets of fairness, equality and justice and corner stone of the adjudicatory process. 19. Unless the principles of natural justice are sepcifically excluded, the employer is required to observe the same, more particularly, where an action as serious as termination of service is in the offing. 20. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that neither any notice was served upon the petitioner nor was she put to notice of the action contemplated by the respondents. 21. That apart, the order impugned records a finding that the petitioner had taken a bribe of Rs.2000/-, which may or may not be true. Recording such fact casts a stigma on the petitioner’s character. The respondents have failed to point out any other reason due to which petitioner’s services has been brought an end except the reason that she had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.2000/-. 22. According to this Court, the stand of the respondents that oral notice of telephonic conversation was given cannot be countenanced. Service of an employee cannot be terminated solely on the basis of oral notice as claimed by the respondents. The notice not only has to be in writing giving an employee a reasonable opportunity to put forth his/her defence but shall also contain particulars about the proposed action to be taken. 23. According to this Court, the order impugned is not only contrary to the principles of natural justice but also illegal being a stigmatic order. The notice not only has to be in writing giving an employee a reasonable opportunity to put forth his/her defence but shall also contain particulars about the proposed action to be taken. 23. According to this Court, the order impugned is not only contrary to the principles of natural justice but also illegal being a stigmatic order. No stigma can be cast against an employee without there being a fact-finding inquiry. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi report in AIR 2010 (SC) 3493 has held thus :- “27. ………….That if a discharge is based upon misconduct or if there is a live connection between the allegations of misconduct and discharge, then the same, even if couched in language which is not stigmatic, would amount to a punishment for which a departmental enquiry was imperative.” 24. In the present case, the order is indisputably stigmatic. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. 25. The impugned orders dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure-9) and 01.03.2025 (Annexure-13) are hereby quashed and set aside. 26. Needless to observe that the respondents shall be free to take appropriate action against the petitioner after following due process and principles of natural justice. 27. As the order impugned has been quashed, it will be required of the respondents to take the petitioner back on duties within a period of seven days. 28. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.