Judgment 1. The writ petitioner is employed as Supervisor in TASMAC shop No.4863 in Kanyakumari District. On 21.07.2012, the District Manager in-charge made a surprise inspection of the said shop. At that time, it was found that Old Secret 180 ML Rum was sold at Rs.70 in stead of Rs.65 and that the liquor was sold at a higher price of Rs.5/-. This act has caused bad reputation to the TASMAC Corporation. Based on the report of the in-charge, District Manager, the District Manager by his proceedings in Na.Ka.724/A/2012, dated 30.07.2012 has temporarily removed the petitioner from service. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the TASMAC Limited. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 21.07.2012, the petitioner had gone out to attend other duty and he was not present, during inspection. This according to him, assuming that Old Secret 180 Ml Rum was sold at a higher rate, he was not responsible for the same. For a show-cause notice issued, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating the same also. But without considering same, the District Manager has temporarily removed him from service, even without making any enquiry and that too, without framing any charge. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that while ordering notice of motion in this writ petition, on 16.08.2012, this Court has granted an interim order of stay and on account of the same, the petitioner had been allowed to continue in service. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that though the petitioner was not present at the time of inspection, in the shop, he is also collectively responsible along with other members of the shop. Therefore, he was temporarily removed from service. 6. This, in my considered opinion, when the petitioner was not on duty at the time of inspection, for the misconduct committed by some other employees, he cannot be held, even vicariously, responsible. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent in his letter No.724/A/2012, dated 30.07.2012 is set aside. Consequently, connected M.P.(md).No.1 of 2012 is closed. No costs.