Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 23.08.2011 vide which the service of the petitioner had been ordered to be terminated with effect from 28.03.2011. 2. The impugned order reads as under: "Confidential/Most urgent: Proceedings of the Joint Director of Medical Services, Thiruvallur Present: Dr.Sukumaran, M.B.B.S., D. Ortho Ref.No.1514/E2/C/11 Sub: Trap and arrest of Thiru A.Loganathan, Temporay Junior Assistant, Office of the Joint Director of Health Services, Thiruvallur in a criminal case under prevention of corruption Act – arrested and sent to remand on 28.3.2011 – Termination orders issued – reg. Read Ref: 1. FIR in Vigilance and Anti corruption, Kanchipuram, Cr.No.02/AC/MED/2011/KM under section 7 &13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of prevention of corruption Act, 1988. 2. Cr.No.02/AC/MED/2011/KM dt.29.3.11 of the Inspector of Vigilance and Anti corruption, Kanchipuram. 3 Proc.No.27848/04/A4 dated 22.12.04 of the District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. ***** Orders: Thiru A.Loganathan has joined duty as Temporary Junior Assistant in the Office of the Joint Director of Health Services, Thiruvallur vide Pro.3rd cited. On 28.3.11 at 9.30 hrs one hiru D.Suresh, S/o Dharman, residing at 210 A.Gurupuram Mohammadiar street, meyyur village and post, Uthukottai Taluk, Thiruvallur District has given a written complaint against Thiru A.Loganathan, Temporary Junior Assistant. On 28.3.11 after 11.00 hrs Thiru A.Loganathan has demanded Rs.20000/- and received an amount of Rs.500/- as advance for making arrangements to furnish birth details of his brothers son at Govt. Hospital, Thiruvallur and a case was registered in Kanchipuram Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cr.No.02/AC/2011/KM under section prevention of corruption Act, 1988 on 28.3.11. Subsequently, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Kanchipuram has trapped Thiru A.Loganathan on 28.3.11 and was arrested and sent to remand for 15 days. In this circumstances the relevant documents were examined carefully and independently and finally the undersigned has decided to terminate Thiru A.Loganathan, Temporary Junior Assistant, Office of the Joint Director of Health Services, Thiruvallur from service. Therefore, it is hereby ordered to terminate him from service w.e.f. The date of arrest on 28.3.11." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the impugned order being violative of principle of natural justice and on the ground that though the order of termination is stigmatic nature, but no enquiry was held before passing the impugned order. 4. Therefore, it is hereby ordered to terminate him from service w.e.f. The date of arrest on 28.3.11." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the impugned order being violative of principle of natural justice and on the ground that though the order of termination is stigmatic nature, but no enquiry was held before passing the impugned order. 4. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is totally arbitrary, as the services of the petitioner were terminated with retrospective effect i.e. 28.3.11, which is not permissible in law. 5. The writ petition is opposed by the learned Government Advocate, by contending that the petitioner has no right to hold the post being temporary employee who is involved in the corruption case, and was caught red handed. The petitioner is facing criminal case in which he was in custody for a period of one month after remand. 6. On consideration, I find that the writ petition deserves to be succeed. The petitioner in view of the involvement in the criminal case, could have been suspended from service pending trial. In the alternative, the respondent would have terminated the service of the petitioner in terms of letter of appointment on assessment of work conduct by passing simplicitor order without referring to the corruption charge levelled. The order which is stigmatic in nature cannot be passed without holding departmental enquiry, even in case of a temporary employee. 7. The reading of the impugned order, shows that the order is stigmatic in nature, as termination of service of the petitioner is not in the terms of letter of appointment or overall assessment of work, and conduct, but on a specific charge of misconduct. The respondent therefore was bound to hold departmental enquiry by following the principle of natural justice. 8. The impugned order also suffers from patent illegality, as the order of termination has been passed with retrospective effect which is not permissible in law. 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to be under suspension, as he was admittedly, in custody for more than 24 hours, thus, deem to be under suspension. The petitioner shall be entitled to subsistence allowance. 10. 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to be under suspension, as he was admittedly, in custody for more than 24 hours, thus, deem to be under suspension. The petitioner shall be entitled to subsistence allowance. 10. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to hold departmental enquiry, and take appropriate action in accordance with law, if so advised. 11 M.P.No.1 of 2012 filed by the respondents to vacate the interim order is ordered to be dismissed as having been rendered infructuous in view of order allowing the writ.