Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner has been working under the third respondent as a Plot Watcher from 6. 1982. The post of Plot Watcher has not been brought into the regular establishment and therefore, the petitioner has been treated as a contingency staff. In spite of his long service of over 17 years he has not been recruited as a regular Watcher. While so, the third respondent had informed the petitioner, on 11. 1999, that he will not be paid the salary from the month of November, 1999. This act of the third respondent amounts to termination of the petitioners service, without any notice being issued to him. Thus, the termination of the service of the petitioner is in violation of the procedures established by law and it is in contravention of the principles of natural justice. 3. It has also been stated that at the time of his termination from service, he had been included in the list of persons who were being considered for recruitment as regular Plot Watchers. The termination of the service of the petitioner, who was the only bread winner of the family, would cause irreparable loss and mental agony to the members of the petitioners family. In spite of the requests made by the petitioner the respondents have not passed any orders in favour of the petitioner, till date. 4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the petitioner had worked in the Interface Forestry Range, Krishnagiri, as a Plot Watcher, on Nominal Muster Roll basis. While he was working as a Plot Watcher, he was in charge of Tank Karuvel plantations and Karadu Plantations. While the Tank was under the control of the petitioner, it was reported by the Ranger, Krishnagiri, that the Karuvel trees worth Rs.2,39,581/- had been felled, illicitly. Since there were no standing trees in the Tank, no sale of trees by public auction could take place during the year 1996-1997. In such circumstances, the petitioner had been stopped from performing his duties, as a Plot Watcher, from 11. 1999. In fact, the petitioner has been working under the control of the third respondent only from 7. 1987 and not from 6. In such circumstances, the petitioner had been stopped from performing his duties, as a Plot Watcher, from 11. 1999. In fact, the petitioner has been working under the control of the third respondent only from 7. 1987 and not from 6. 1982, as claimed by him. Though his name had been included in the seniority list of Plot Watchers for their future appointments, as regular Plot watchers, he could not be considered for such appointment, as he had been stopped from work, from 11. 1999. .5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had vehemently contended that the act of the third respondent, in stopping the petitioner from working, as a Plot Watcher, amounts to termination of the petitioner from service. Since no prior notice had been given to the petitioner, by the third respondent, before he was terminated from service, such termination cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as it is in contravention of the principles of natural justice. Even if the petitioner has been employed on a temporary basis, he should have been given an opportunity to put forth his case, in view of his long years of service. The termination of the service of the petitioner, especially, at the time when his name had been included in the list of persons who were to be regularised in service, is arbitrary, illegal and void. When he was charged with negligence in performing his duties, he should have been issued with a show cause notice and an enquiry should have been conducted, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. The allegations made against the petitioner attaches a stigma on him and it has civil consequences. Therefore, the termination by the third respondent, without following the principles of justice, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. .6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India 2000(3) SCC 588 , wherein, it has held as follows: ."The appellant, although a casual labour, had acquired temporary status. Once an employee attains the "temporary" status, he becomes entitled to certain benefits one of which is that he becomes entitled to the constitutional protection envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution and other articles dealing with services under the Union of India. Once an employee attains the "temporary" status, he becomes entitled to certain benefits one of which is that he becomes entitled to the constitutional protection envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution and other articles dealing with services under the Union of India. The services were terminated on account of the allegation of assault made against the appellant. The order of termination in the instant case, cannot be treated to be a simple order of retrenchment. It was an order passed by way of punishment and, therefore, was an order of dismissal which, having been passed on the basis of preliminary inquiry and without holding a regular departmental inquiry, cannot be sustained." .7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had been employed as a Plot Watcher, on Nominal Muster Roll basis. While he was working as a Plot Watcher, he had been negligent in performing his duties. Due to his negligence, Karuvel trees worth Rs.2,39,581/-, had been illegally felled by unknown persons. Since he had not been brought into the establishment, as a regular employee, he was stopped from work, from 11. 1999. As such the petitioner does not have any right to the post of Plot Watcher, as he was working only on Nominal Muster Roll basis. Therefore, he was stopped from work, without any notice being issued to him and without conducting any enquiry. No charges had been framed against the petitioner and therefore, there was no necessity to conduct an enquiry. Further, the petitioner cannot claim that a stigma had been attached to him due to his termination from service. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the reliefs, as prayed for by him, in the present writ petition. It is clear that the petitioner had been employed as a Plot Watcher, only on Nominal Muster Roll basis and therefore, he did not have any right to the post or to be regularised in service, as a plot watcher. It is clear that the petitioner had been employed as a Plot Watcher, only on Nominal Muster Roll basis and therefore, he did not have any right to the post or to be regularised in service, as a plot watcher. Even though his name had been included in the list of persons, who were to be regularised in service, it cannot be said that he had a right to the post or to continue in service, as a Plot Watcher. No charges had been levelled against the petitioner before he had been stopped from performing his duties as a Plot Watcher. In spite of the fact that no notice had been issued to the petitioner, by the third respondent, before he was stopped from performing his duties, it cannot be said that the third respondent had acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner and that he had acted in contravention of the principles of natural justice. In such view of the matter the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.