Judgment :- 1 This petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorarifiedmandamus to call for the records on the file of the second respondent dated 8.4.2008 in Se.Mu.Ka. No. C.V.2/882/2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner. 2 The petitioner was appointed on contract basis as a Salesman in TASMAC shop and by the impugned order his services were terminated and that is now under challenge. 3 The plea taken by the petitioner is that no enquiry was conducted and a charge memo was not issued. In the impugned order, the main reason stated is that the petitioner indulged in adulteration and therefore caused disrepute to the Corporation. This resulted in termination of petitioner service. He pleads that if he is reinstated, he .will not claim back wages. 4 The reason given by the authority appears to be contrary to policy of the State. In the case of liquor which is sold in the TASMAC shop, consumption is also permitted in the attached eatery. Even as per statutory notice, consumption of alcohol is injurious to health. Slogans like drink destroys family etc. are widely published. If that be so, if the petitioner adds water to the so called injurious substance, I am unable to comprehend how dilution of the injurious substance sold to public is a more serious offence. Will this be a ground for the respondent to take action against the petitioner is a question that the respondents will have to consider. 5 It is the allegation of petitioner that the respondent authorities are resorting to termination of contract labourers for extraneous reasons citing the adding of water as adulteration, which appears to be an easy method to remove such workers without enquiry. 6 In V.L. Lakshmanakumar v. The District Manager, “ TASMAC ” Limited, Madurai District, Madurai (2006) 1 MLJ 187 : (2006, 1,C.T.C. 660) this Court had an occasion to consider identical issue of dismissal of an employee on the ground of adulteration by adding water and held that the order passed without following the due process of law was bad. 7 The relevant portion of the decision cited supra reads as follows at p. 188 of (2006) 1 MLJ 187 : “ (5)However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner was not dismissed pursuant to the contract. 7 The relevant portion of the decision cited supra reads as follows at p. 188 of (2006) 1 MLJ 187 : “ (5)However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner was not dismissed pursuant to the contract. For the purpose of dismissal, the first respondent has relied upon a surprise inspection carried out in the TASMAC shop, which revealed that some of the bottles were adulterated by mixing water and that such, act of the- staff of the TASMAC had brought disrepute to the Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner/Supervisor has been removed from service. (6)By the above reasoning, the first respondent has found that the petitioner has committed certain misconduct and the impugned order is not an order of termination simpliciter. Whether an order is an order of simple termination or would amount to stigma, thereby resulting in civil consequences, is only to be determined considering the facts and circumstances of each case. A plain reading of the impugned order passed by the first respondent makes it clear that it is not an order of termination simpliciter. (7)The Apex Court, in more than one case, has held that when an order of termination involves civil consequences and consequently amounts to stigma, the same cannot be passed without there being a charge memo, enquiry and the finding as to those charges. This proposition of law has been recently reiterated by the Apex Court in the judgment in State of Harxyana v. Satyender Singh Rathore (2005) 7 SCC 518 : 2005-III-LLJ-7025. In that judgment, the Supreme Court has relied upon the earlier judgment in DiptiPrakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Boase National Centre fox Basic Sciences, AIR 1999 SC 983 : (1999) 3 SCC 60 : 1999-I-LLJ-1054, and has held that if findings were arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as “ founded ” on the allegations and will be bad. (8)In view of the above pronouncement of the Apex Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, the order of this Court will not stand in the way of the respondents to initiate action against the petitioner strictly in terms of the appointment order. (8)In view of the above pronouncement of the Apex Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, the order of this Court will not stand in the way of the respondents to initiate action against the petitioner strictly in terms of the appointment order. ” 8 The above cited case squarely covers the fact of the present case. The impugned order of dismissal therefore is liable to be set aside with liberty to the respondents to initiate action as per law. The statement of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will not claim backwages is recorded. The petitioner is entitled to be re-instated into service. The writ petition is allowed with the above terms. No Costs.