Judgment :- 1. The petitioner claims to have passed V standard, therefore, was qualified for appointment as Gangman. The petitioner, on the basis of school certificate, issued to him, showing 5th standard pass, was appointed on 12.11.1997 at Kovilpatti Sub Division. 2. The petitioner successfully completed his probation period. For regularizing his service, his certificates were sent to the school for verification. The petitioner submits that he submitted the above requisite certificate, which was given to him by his relatives. 3. The certificate issued by petitioner was found to be false, therefore, his services were ordered to be terminated without issuing show cause notice. 4. The impugned order is challenged by petitioner on the ground that before ordering termination of petitioner, by way of stigmatic order, no departmental enquiry was held to hold petitioner guilty of submitting false certificate. 5. The order is also challenged on the ground that impugned order of termination has not been passed in terms of appointment letter or on consideration of work or conduct, but on specific charge of misconduct of having submitted forged certificate. 6. Learned Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends, that as the service of the petitioner was not regularized, there was no necessity to hold departmental enquiry, specially when the petitioner failed to reply to the charge memo, issued to him. 7. It is also the contention of learned Additional Government Pleader that Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, applies to the permanent employees and not to temporary employees. 8. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. Though it was open to the respondents to terminate services of petitioner, on assessment over work and conduct on expiry of probation period, but after having declared that, the petitioner had successfully completed probation period, his services could not have been terminated without holding departmental enquiry, as the impugned order has not been passed on the over all assessment of work and conduct, but on specific charge of filing false school leaving certificate. 9. It is well settled law that, stigmatic orders by way of punishment even in case of temporary employee, cannot be passed without following principles of natural justice, and holding departmental enquiry to prove the misconduct. 10. 9. It is well settled law that, stigmatic orders by way of punishment even in case of temporary employee, cannot be passed without following principles of natural justice, and holding departmental enquiry to prove the misconduct. 10. The contention of learned Additional Government Pleader, that Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules applies to permanent employee only, cannot be accepted, as there is no distinction between permanent and temporary employees, as both are members of service. The Rule 17(b) also applies in case of the punishment to temporary employee on the specific charge. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also right in contending that order of termination could not be passed with retrospective effect. 12. For the reasons stated herein-above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, it shall be open to the respondents to take action against petitioner in accordance with law, by holding departmental enquiry to prove the charge of misconduct. 13. The consequential benefits payable to petitioner shall be restricted only to 25%, as petitioner must have been employed during all these years, as he cannot be expected to have remained idle all these years. 14. No costs.