Judgment : The petitioner has challenged the order, dated 17. 1996 of the Register of Cooperative Societies, Chennai, first respondent herein and consequently, for a direction to reinstate him as Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies with el service and monetary benefits. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was temporarily appointed as Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies on 4. 1986. A charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) rules, was served on the petitioner and he had submitted his explanation. Thereafter, there was no progress in the disciplinary action. When the Government decided to regularize temporary hands like that of the petitioner, by holding a special qualification examination, the petitioner was not permitted to take part in the said examination on the ground that he was already terminated from service. According to the petitioner, there was no communication in this regard. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to submit a representation, dated 22. 1990 to the first respondent, requesting him to furnish the reasons for non-considering his case to participate in the Special Qualifying Examination. By reminder dated 22. 1996, the petitioner once again requested the Deputy Register of Cooperative Societies, Coimbatore, second respondent to pass orders on the appeal memorandum. Since no order was passed on the representation, left with no other alternative, the petitioner was constrained to file O.A.No.2565 of 1996, before the Tribunal for a direction to the respondents to dispose of the statutory appeal pending on the file of the first respondent. By order dated 15. 1996, the Tribunal directed the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai, first respondent herein, to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 22. 1990, within a time frame. Pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, the first respondent, while disposing of the said representation, by order dated 17. 1996, has stated that as the petitioner had committed serious irregularities and malpractices during his tenure as Special Officer of the above said Society, he was terminated from service with effect from 18. 1988, without assigning any reasons. It is further stated that as per Rule 10(a)(v) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the services of a person appointed temporally can be terminated at any time without any notice. 3. 1988, without assigning any reasons. It is further stated that as per Rule 10(a)(v) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the services of a person appointed temporally can be terminated at any time without any notice. 3. Inviting the attention of this Court to the reasons assigned by the first respondent for terminating the services of the petitioner that he had committed serious irregularities and malpractices during his tenure as Special Officer and to the averments in Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mr. L. Chandra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, termination or removal from service on the ground of irregularity and malpractices, casts a stigma on the conduct of the petitioner, inviting civil consequences and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. He therefore submitted that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, warranting interference. 4. Referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit, Mr. C. Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that charges were framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service Discipline and Appeal) Rules, and not under Rule 17(b) of the Rules, as contended by the petitioner and therefore, the question of conducting oral enquiry and giving an opportunity of being heard, does not arise. He further submitted that as per Rule 10(a)(v) of the General Rules, the appointing authority is empowered to terminate the services of a temporary employee, without assigning any reasons, at any time and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Pursuant to the direction in O.A.No.2565 of 1996, dated 15. 1996, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, by order dated 17. 1996, has disposed of the representation of the petitioner, dated 22. 1990, stating that the question of preferring an appeal against the punishment, does not arise. In Paragraph 2 of the said Order, the first respondent has stated as follows: "In this connection, I wish to state that you were appointed as temporary Junior Inspector under Rule 10(a)(1) of the General Rule under State and Subordinate Services by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore, in his proceedings in Rc.20372/85 pa tho, dated 33. In Paragraph 2 of the said Order, the first respondent has stated as follows: "In this connection, I wish to state that you were appointed as temporary Junior Inspector under Rule 10(a)(1) of the General Rule under State and Subordinate Services by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore, in his proceedings in Rc.20372/85 pa tho, dated 33. 1986 to work as Special Officers of following Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks, namely: .(1) Mangarasuvalayapalayam .(2) A. Kurumbapalayam .(3) A. Vadugapalayam in Coimbatore Circle. As you have committed certain serious irregularities and malpractices during your tenure as Special Officer of the above said societies, you were terminated from service with, effect from 18. 1987 without assigning any reason by the Deputy Registrar, Coimbatore in his proceedings rs.8683 87 Ve, dated 18. 1987. This proceedings was also served on you on 18. 1987". 7. In Paragraph 9 of the Counter affidavit, the second respondent has stated that the charges were framed against the petitioner only under Rule 17(a) and not under Rule 17(b) as contended by the petitioner. Hence, holding enquiry and offering an opportunity of being heard in person are not mandatory in this case. Moreover, the two sets of charge memos framed under Rule 17(a) against the petitioner had also been deferred, consequent to his termination from service for the irregularities and malpractices committed by him duly invoking the provisions under Rule 10(a)(v) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules and therefore, there is no violation of rules as contended by the petitioner. 8. On going through the counter affidavit and the impugned order, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner has been terminated only on the basis of certain irregularities and malpractices during his tenure as Special officer of the Society. If charges were framed under 17(a) of the Discipline and Appeal rules, a major punishment of termination/removal cannot be inflicted. Termination based on specific charges, certainly casts stigma on the conduct of the petitioner. It is well settled that even a temporary employee is entitled to protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Reference can be made to few judgments of the Supreme Court. Termination based on specific charges, certainly casts stigma on the conduct of the petitioner. It is well settled that even a temporary employee is entitled to protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Reference can be made to few judgments of the Supreme Court. In Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P., AIR 2000 SC 1706 : (2000) 5 SCC 152 , the Apex Court has held that temporary government employee or a probationer is also entitled to protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution and that the Court can lift the veil to determine the real character of termination. 9. The Supreme Court in Union Territory of Tripura v. Gopal Chandra Dutta Choudhuri AIR 1963 SC 601 : 1963-II-LLJ-633, held that when employment of a temporary public servant is terminated pursuant to the terms of a contract, he is not entitled to as the protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. But the State may, instead of exercising its contractual right to seek to terminate the employment of a temporary employee for misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or any other disqualification and when an order of termination of employment is passed for that purpose, it would amount to dismissal or removal attracting the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. The form in which the order is couched is not decisive. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order, dated 17. 1996 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, first respondent, who shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the order of termination was passed in the year 1997 and having regard to the pendency of this litigation for more than ten years, the appellate authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner, with reference to the charge and pass orders. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.