ORDER : Noushad Ali, J. The petitioner is a Junior Lineman (Contract) employed in the 1st respondent – Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited. His services were terminated vide Memo No. DEE/O&C/KMR/ADM/JAO/E2/D. No. 1961/12, dated 29.11.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to the directions in W.P. No. 8971 of 2013 filed by him against the said order, order dated 23.03.2013 has been passed by the 2nd respondent affirming the termination. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner was assigned duty at 33/11KV Substation, Baswapoor, on the intervening night of 12/13.06.2012. In the late night of 12.06.2012, a theft of 770 litres of transformer oil took place. The said fact came to light only when the petitioner turned out to work on 13.06.2012 morning to hand over the charge to his reliever. Purportedly, the petitioner informed about the incident to his superiors. Though the petitioner was expected to prevent the theft as a responsible employee, he failed to discharge the obligation. Therefore, his services have been terminated by the 3rd respondent in the purported exercise of the powers available under the contract between the parties. 3. It is not in dispute that the allegations were not subjected to any enquiry. All that was done was that a show cause notice was given to him on 19.06.2012, in response to which, the petitioner submitted explanations dated 20.09.2012 and 01.03.2013. In the explanation dated 20.09.2012, he stated that he discharged his duties diligently and as soon as he noticed the theft, he promptly informed the same to the superior officers. In the explanation dated 01.03.2013, the petitioner denied having left the premises and that the theft took place during his duty. He prayed for dropping further action in the matter. 4. The explanation of the petitioner did not find favour with the respondents. Thus, the impugned orders came to be passed. 5. The petitioner is a contract employee under an agreement dated 03.08.2011. Though a contractual service can be terminated without prior notice on certain grounds, termination with stigma cannot be an action simpliciter. The 3rd respondent has found the petitioner guilty of negligence and carelessness in attending the duties. Therefore, the said finding clearly attaches stigma to the petitioner and the action of termination is punitive in nature. As noticed above, no enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner before stigmatizing him. 6. The 3rd respondent has found the petitioner guilty of negligence and carelessness in attending the duties. Therefore, the said finding clearly attaches stigma to the petitioner and the action of termination is punitive in nature. As noticed above, no enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner before stigmatizing him. 6. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and are accordingly set aside. The 3rd respondent is at liberty to initiate enquiry and pass orders afresh after due notice to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. In view of disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No. 17005 of 2013 shall stand closed as unnecessary.