Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant on temporary basis under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, by an order of the second respondent, dated 15.09.2011. Thereafter, by an order dated 01.12.2011, the petitioner was allotted as a Residential Office Assistant in the house of the third respondent, the Head of the Department of the Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection and the petitioner was directed to join duty immediately. The written order was served on the petitioner on 5.12.2011 and he reported for duty on 6.12.2011. According to the petitioner, in the house of the third respondent, the petitioner was asked to wash the floor, vessels and clothes of the family members. Though those works are not related to office work, the petitioner did the same with great difficulty. However, the petitioner was terminated from service by the impugned order, dated 19.12.2011, on the ground that he abstained from duty for a long time and he was found wanting in performance. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 19.12.2011 terminating his service on the ground that the order is a punitive one and the same was passed without affording an opportunity to him. 3. The respondents 1 to 2 have filed their counter affidavit. The respondents 1 and 2 have stated in their counter affidavit that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary employee and he could be sent out as soon as the regular appointment is made. It is also stated that as per the Rule 10(a)(v) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, the petitioner could be terminated by the appointing authority at any time without any notice and without any reason. The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy before the Government and without exhausting the available alternative remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court and on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Even on merits, since the petitioner was absent for a long time and he did not perform his duty, he was terminated from service. 4. The third respondent filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. It is stated that there are separate maids to look after the household work and the petitioner was never given any extreme instructions as portrayed by him. 4. The third respondent filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. It is stated that there are separate maids to look after the household work and the petitioner was never given any extreme instructions as portrayed by him. The petitioner was never asked to do any duty that would offend his self respect and dignity. 5. I have heard the submissions made on either side. 6. Since the petitioner was appointed as a temporary employee under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, he can not have protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. But, if the petitioner was terminated from service by way of punitive action, the same could be interfered with by this Court, particularly, when the punitive action was made in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. It is appropriate to extract the impugned order, which is as follows: "Thiru. M.P.Premkumar temporarily was selected as Office Assistant through Employment Exchange and appointed as Office Assistant in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Sholinganallur Zone under Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services in Service Rules 10(a)(i) and joined duty on F.N. of 19.09.2011. He has abstained for duty for long and found wanting in performance. He is terminated from service and relieved forthwith." 8. The last two lines in the impugned order make it clear that the allegations made against the petitioner are that he abstained from duty for a long time and he was found wanting in performance. But, the petitioner has denied the alleged absence. According to him, he worked from 6.12.2011. But according to the impugned order, he abstained from duty for a long time. Further, the allegation is made against the petitioner that he was wanting in performance. 9. The termination was inflicted on the petitioner stating that his services were no more required. But on the other hand, the termination order makes some allegations against the petitioner and the same are stoutly denied by the petitioner. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the same is liable to be quashed and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. 10. But on the other hand, the termination order makes some allegations against the petitioner and the same are stoutly denied by the petitioner. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the same is liable to be quashed and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. 10. However, the respondents 1 and 2 have categorically stated in their counter affidavit that pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.47, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.F) Department, dated 09.02.1993, the petitioner was appointed as Residential Office Assistant. 11. Having been appointed as Residential Office Assistant, the petitioner can not expect that he could be allotted duty only in the office. The affidavit filed by the petitioner makes it clear that he wanted the same work as was done by him in the office. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that he is not entitled to any wages for the period of non employment and while setting aside the impugned order, the respondents are directed to restore him to duty as a temporary office Assistant, without wages for the period of non employment. 12. The writ petition is ordered on the above terms. No costs.