As per case facts, the Petitioner, a contractual Mid-Level Health Provider, faced multiple allegations of habitual unauthorized absence, tampering with attendance, unprofessional behavior, and unsatisfactory performance after joining her posting. ... Several enquiry committees found her conduct unsatisfactory, leading to repeated show cause notices and the eventual termination of her contractual services. The Petitioner challenged the termination, arguing it was stigmatic and passed without a proper departmental enquiry or opportunity for cross-examination. The question arose whether a contractual employee is entitled to a regular departmental enquiry before termination, especially when the order is stigmatic. Finally, the High Court held that a contractual employee is not entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which mandates a regular departmental enquiry. The Court found that the termination was in accordance with the contract terms, followed principles of natural justice through multiple show cause notices and enquiries, and thus, the petition lacked merit and was dismissed.