JUDGMENT : Susanta Chatterji, J. - The writ petitioner has challenged the impugned order of suspension in the manner as prayed for. For better appreciation the prayer is quoted hereinbelow : "...... to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs shall not be issued quashing the order of suspension dated 19.7.1988 i.e. Order No. R.G.B. 42-2191, and if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause to make the Rule absolute....." 2. It is stated in details that the petitioner was appointed as a Daily Wage Labourer-cwm-Messenger in Nalbantha Rushikulya Grama Bank on 2.4.1982. He was appointed on daily wage of Rs. 8/- for one year. Thereafter his wage was revised to Rs. 10/- per day and again Rs. 11/- per day in the same Branch for one and half years. Subsequently, the petitioner was given a consolidated sum of Rs. 700/- per month. The petitioner continued till 2.4.1984 in Talabantha Branch. Then he was transferred to Ashurbandha Branch. After working continuously for more than six years the petitioner was allegedly suspended on the allegation that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3040/- which he had collected unauthorisedly. He deposited the same after it was detected by the authority. The petitioner made several representations but neither any disciplinary proceeding was initiated nor any subsistence allowance was paid to him and the matter remained in cold storage. In spite of his representation to the Chairman of the Bank nothing has come out. A Lawyer's letter followed but it was put to deaf ear. Having no other alternative the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court on 4.5.1993. While the writ petition was entertained and notice was issued there was an order asking the opposite party, namely, Manager, Rushikulya Gramya Bank, Ashurbandha, Dist. Ganjam to produce the copy of the order of suspension of the petitioner dated 19.7.1988. 3. The writ petition is opposed by opposite party No. 1 by filing a comprehensive counter affidavit. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the appointment of the petitioner as a daily wage earner-cum-Messenger is not disputed. It is asserted that the petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3040/- which was collected by him unauthorisedly. 3. The writ petition is opposed by opposite party No. 1 by filing a comprehensive counter affidavit. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the appointment of the petitioner as a daily wage earner-cum-Messenger is not disputed. It is asserted that the petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3040/- which was collected by him unauthorisedly. The act of misappropriation having been detected the Management of the Bank advised that the petitioner might not be given further engagement on daily wage basis and he was suspended accordingly. As the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis there was no need for initiating any disciplinary proceeding and the question of payment of subsistence allowance is absolutely untenable in law when he has no right to his post. 4. An additional counter affidavit has been filed by the self-same Chairman, Rushikulya Gramya Bank on 20.9.1997 annexing a copy of the communication dated 19.7.1988 by the Manager of Rushikulya Gramya Bank addressed to the Chairman being Annexure-A/1. 5. At the time of final hearing of the matter, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a Messenger and he was not associated with any act of collection. The allegation of misappropriation is absolutely false and incorrect. Besides, after the order of suspension no disciplinary proceeding has been initiated, no enquiry has been held and the matter is being kept arbitrarily with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner. 6. Mr. Y.S.N. Murty, learned Counsel for the opposite party, Grannya Bank, has made a novel argument that there is no question of suspension of the petitioner. It is loosely used by the Manager of the Bank who has no understanding of any legal implication. The petitioner was a mere daily wage earner having no right to any post. Further engagement of the petitioner was suspended which amounts to cessation of the work. Suspension of further engagement does not entitle the petitioner to ask for initiation of any disciplinary proceeding nor there is question of any further enquiry. The acts done and/or caused to have been done by the opposite parties were well justified in law and the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and does not require an interference by the writ Court. 7. Patiently we have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. The appointment of the petitioner and his continuity with consolidated salary of Rs. The acts done and/or caused to have been done by the opposite parties were well justified in law and the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and does not require an interference by the writ Court. 7. Patiently we have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. The appointment of the petitioner and his continuity with consolidated salary of Rs. 700/- per month for over six years is not disputed and denied. True it is, that a daily wage earner or a casual employee with consolidated pay has no right to a post but the Service Jurisprudence does not permit termination of service even of a temporary employee or a casual employee with stigma that he has caused misappropriation and his removal from service without giving him any opportunity to defend his guilt is obviously reprehensible. 8. The text of the letter written by the Manager of the Bank to the Chairman, copy whereof is Annexure A/1, is very much clear regarding unauthorised collection by a daily wage earner. He is stated to have written "that Mr. R.N. Adhikari, sub-staff kept under suspension till the investigation is over. Mr. Biswachuda Behera is appointed as a sub-staff in place of Mr. R.N. Adhikari". If the Manager has positively kept the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry, we cannot appreciate the argument of Mr. Murty that the petitioner was not suspended but engagement of the petitioner as daily wage earner was ceased. The word "suspension" does not terminate the relationship of the employer and employee. The relationship continues until there is removal or termination. We cannot conceive even remotely that by this purported suspension the engagement of the-petitioner as a worker was stopped resulting any automatic removal and the petitioner cannot ask for any relief as he has done. 9. An employee either "permanent" or "temporary" has the right to defend against any stigma. If the employee is under any precarious condition of service having no right to the post, he may be summarily removed without any opportunity to show cause but law is very clear that when a stigma is attached, minimum opportunity of defence by way of natural justice cannot be avoided. We do not appreciate the argument of Mr. Murty for the opposite parties that the Manager of the Bank did not know the implication and his letter to the Chairman may be ignored by the Court. We do not appreciate the argument of Mr. Murty for the opposite parties that the Manager of the Bank did not know the implication and his letter to the Chairman may be ignored by the Court. If the petitioner has been kept under suspension pending investigation the matter does not end here and investigation has to follow. The step taken by the opposite parties in keeping the case of the petitioner in cold storage for an indefinite period is unjust and unfair and it necessitates the interference by the Writ Court as the situation may demand. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the writ petition, quash the impugned order of suspension as communicated by letter dated 19.7.1988 under Annexure A/1 and direct the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to join his duties forthwith. We, however, direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the petitioner towards the financial loss and back wages taking note of the actual relevant factors. This amount should be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. There is no order as to costs. D.M. Patnaik, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed