Judgment :- D.MURUGESAN, J. The writ appeal is at the instance of the District Manager, TASMAC, Coimbatore Region, Erode. The respondent was appointed as a bar attender in the TASMAC retail outlet in Shop No.3596 on 31. 2004. Initially he was given only a consolidated pay of Rs.2,000/- per month. On the ground that some bottles of liquor were adulterated while he was bar attender, he was suspended from service on 2. 2005. He was also issued with a show cause notice on the same day containing the following charges:- "Charge No.1: Liquor bottles were sold in retail by mixing water. Charge No.2: Temporary misappropriation of sale amount Charge No.3: Caused revenue loss to the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation. Charge No.4: Violating the terms of contract and acted independently. Charge No.5: Sales Chitta was not completed for the period from 17.05.2005 to 26.05.2005. Charge No.6: Employees have not signed the attendance register for two days. The employee had submitted his explanation denying those charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, he was dismissed from service by the order dated 16. 2005. 2. The said order was questioned in the writ petition on the ground that in the absence of enquiry, the dismissal order cannot be sustained. The writ petition came to be allowed by the learned Judge following the judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 660 (Lakshmanakumar V.L. v. The District Manager, TASMAC Limited) rendered by one of us (D.Murugesan, J.). The learned Judge has also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (7) SCC 518 (State of Haryana v. Satyendra Singh Rathore) and 1999 (3) SCC 60 (Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences). 3. Heard Ms.Hema Nandhini, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Athiveera Ramapandian, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that an inspection was carried on and the report of the forensic department discloses the adulteration of the liquor under the custody of the employee and the said report is a substantial material for not accepting the explanation of the employee and therefore only the order of dismissal was passed. 5. In our opinion, such an argument cannot be accepted. 5. In our opinion, such an argument cannot be accepted. The Apex Court in the judgments reported in 2005 (7) SCC 518 and 1999 (3) SCC 60 , referred supra, has held that when an order involves civil consequences and consequently amounts to stigma, the same cannot be passed without there being a charge memo, enquiry and finding as to those charges. Though in the judgment in Lakshmanakumars case, cited supra, this Court on considering a summary dismissal observed that the TASMAC was entitled to proceed against the employee in terms of the contract that does not mean that such a summary dismissal can be ordered in the event such order causes stigma. 6. We have perused the nature of charges. The charges are very serious, particularly when they allege that the employee has adulterated the liquor and he has misappropriated the money, caused loss to the TASMAC and to the Government. These are all major misconducts, of course, warranting a serious punishment and in that case, a punishment of dismissal could be inflicted only on proper enquiry even in the case of a contract employee, especially when the employee had denied the charges by giving explanation. 7. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is also dismissed.