Judgment :- The petitioner prays for Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 15.2.1999 and to quash the same. 2. The petitioner is admittedly a seasonal employee and he was employed as Bill Clerk in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, which is an undertaking by the Government of Tamil Nadu involved in procurement, storage and distribution of essential commodities. The petitioner claims to have joined the service of the Corporation as Bill Clerk in February 1985 and was continuously working in the post of Bill Clerk since then. He was posted in various purchase centres in Pattukottai Taluk and he claims to have blemishless record of service. In January 1999, he was transferred from the Direct Purchase Centre at Chokkanavur in Pattukottai Taluk to the Direct Purchase Centre at Alathur. On 28.1.1999, he had availed of half a day's leave and he reported for duty at the Direct Purchase Centre, Alathur at about 4.00 p.m. At about 6.00 p.m., on the same day, while he was in the process of making payment to a seller from Allampallam Village from whom the Direct Purchase Centre had purchased paddy, an inspection squad consisting of a Deputy Manager, Superintendent and Quality Inspector from the T.N.C.S.C Vigilance Cell at Chennai suddenly came to the Direct Purchase Centre for the purpose of carrying out a surprise inspection. The petitioner was directed to stop working. He informed them that he was in the midst of process of counting money and handing it over to the seller but they insisted on the petitioner stopping work and then they themselves counted the money paid to the seller and informed that the amount fell short of Rs.24.50 when tallied with the bill. This was objected by the petitioner by telling them that this had happened because he was stopped in the midst of the process of paying money to the seller and the petitioner claims that the seller also confirmed the said fact. 3. However, the members of the Inspection Squad being senior officials of the Corporation threatened to relieve him from the service and coerced the petitioner to sign a statement prepared by them wherein it was stated that there was a discrepancy of a sum of Rs.24.50 between the bill and the amount actually given to the seller. The said statement was obtained from the petitioner under coercion. The said statement was obtained from the petitioner under coercion. The petitioner has further stated some of the details relating to the coercion and it is not necessary at this stage to deal with the same having regard to the nature of the impugned order and the nature of the relief to be given to the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, immediately the petitioner was served with a relieving order, which is as follows; "ORDER As instructed by Senior Regional Manager, based on the report of Head Office, Vigilance Chennai, Thiru A. Sethuraman, Bill Clerk now working at Direct Purchase Centre, Alathur is ordered to be relieved from duty on the FN of 15.2.99. 2. Thiru. A. Sethuraman, Bill Clerk, DPC Alathur is instructed to handover the complete charge of Direct Purchase Centre, Alathur to Thiru S. Rengaiyan, Helper DPC, Alathur at once. 3. The Superintendent (P&M) Pattukottai is instructed to relieve the individual at once after recovering the entire due and move the ground stock at once". Aggrieved by the said order being relieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Mr. V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of the respondent is totally arbitrary as no show cause notice has been issued prior to the relieving order. Learned counsel also refers to definition of employee under Section 4 (i) of the Fundamental Employees Service Regulations 1989 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,. The expression, 'employee' includes persons employed by the Corporation on contract or on deputation. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner is also an employee and therefore, before his services are terminated, he is entitled to a proper show cause notice. 6. It is true that the petitioner is a seasonal employee but, even so, when his services are terminated with a stigma, he is entitled to a proper show cause notice and enquiry. 7. In the counter of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was working as Bill Clerk on 28.1.1995 and when the Vigilance made a surprise inspection, detected certain irregularities committed by the petitioner, it is felt necessary to take immediate action and he was immediately relieved. It is found that the petitioner was facing complaints and he had also indulged in certain other irregularities like procuring substandard paddy contrary to the procurement guidelines. It is found that the petitioner was facing complaints and he had also indulged in certain other irregularities like procuring substandard paddy contrary to the procurement guidelines. Hence, in the interest of the respondent-Corporation and based on the inspection team's report, the petitioner was relieved. He has misapropriated public money and therefore, usual formalities issuing show cause notice and framing charges, calling for explanation, conduct of enquiry cannot be strictly applied to where the circumstances warrant immediate action on the irregularities. No service rules have been framed for seasonal employees like the petitioner. The seasonal clerks are employed on consolidated wages of Rs.750/- plus Dearness Allowance as per the terms of the appointment. The nature of work is only for a specific period of season and is purely temporary and no service rules have been framed for the seasonal employees. 8. In reply, Mr. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that subsequently a charge memo has been issued on 8.3.1999 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his name should not be removed from the seniority list of the seasonal employees. By a letter dated 2.4.1999, he has also submitted his explanation. 9. I have considered the submissions of both sides. 10. It is true that the petitioner is, admittedly, a seasonal employee and not a regular permanent employee of the Corporation. But the definition of 'employee' under the Regulations is an inclusive definition. Even an employee on contract or deputation is treated as employee of the Corporation. 11. Reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the Respondent on the judgment of a Division Bench in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers Union vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (1997 (3) CTC 535) has no application to the issues raised for consideration in this writ petition. In that case, the right of the seasonal employees to be regularised in service was considered and in dealing with the said contention, the Division Bench observed that the appointment was purely on adhoc basis and was contractual and that the appointment comes to an end as soon as the work is over and the person holding the said post can have no legal rights to continue in the said post. 12. In the present case, we are not concerned with any plea for regularisation or conferment of permanency. 12. In the present case, we are not concerned with any plea for regularisation or conferment of permanency. It is a settled proposition of law that even in the case of temporary employee if the termination is based on any stigma or complaint, then the employee is entitled to a proper enquiry. In this case, the order is not a simpliciter order of termination. The impugned order itself discloses that he was sought to be relieved only on the complaint from Vigilance and that as a result of defects having been noticed in the conduct of the petitioner. In fact, with reference to his seniority, subsequently, a show cause notice had been issued on 8.3.1989 in which the allegations against the petitioner have been listed and the petitioner has been called upon to submit his explanation. Therefore, nothing prevented the respondents from taking such action after issuing a proper show cause notice. If the administration informed that his services are to be immediately curtailed, nothing prevented the respondents from ordering a temporary suspension of the employment of the petitioner. Admittedly, the impugned order is one which casts stigma on the petitioner and the action thus taken against him is detrimental to the future claims of the petitioner to be employed as a seasonal employee in the future. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. 13. It is made clear that the result of this writ petition does not imply that the petitioner should be reinstated in service immediately. His future service will depend on the out come of the enquiry contemplated against him by virtue of the show cause notice dated 8.3.1999. Any further relief will abide by the result of the enquiry pending against him. If the enquiry against the petitioner has not already been completed, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry and pass final orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed subject to the above observation. No costs.