JUDGMENT : The respondent no. 1 was a contractual employee. He was posted in the Sales Depot at Esplanade drawing a monthly remuneration of Rs. 2,850/-. The authority, by a letter dated August 06, 2003, terminated his service due to his long absence. He challenged the order of termination that the learned Judge allowed vide judgment and order dated August 06, 2013 appearing at page 121-122 of the paper book. 2. We heard this matter on the last occasion when Mr. Banerjee appearing for the appellants, would seek an accommodation to take further instruction in the matter. Today, he would hand over a written instruction wherefrom we find, he was removed for a different reason. The relevant extract of the written communication is quoted below :- “On going through the available office records it appears that the service of Sri Tarun Kanti Mondal had been terminated due to stock shortage at the showrooms where he had been posted as Showroom-in-charge. It appears from office records that an FIR had been lodged against him on behalf of PBRSSM Ltd at the Hare Street P.S. vide Ref. No. 415/P-13 (C-3)/2006-07 dated 7.2.2007.” 3. From the paragraph quoted supra, we find, there was serious allegation of theft against him for which an FIR was lodged by the appellants with the police station. Hence, we cannot ignore such fact and accept the argument of the appellants, it was a plain and simple termination of a contractual employee. 4. Law is well settled. The employer can get rid of a temporary and/or contractual staff by serving a simple notice of termination and/or by paying the amount in lieu of such notice in terms of the contract. However, when the authority would attach stigma, he must be proceeded with departmentally by affording adequate opportunity to defend himself in the proceeding. Looking to the paragraph quoted supra, we would agree with the ultimate conclusion of the learned Single Judge where order of termination was set aside. We, however, do not agree with the reasoning and the ultimate relief that His Lordship would extend to the delinquent. 5. Following the Apex Court decision in the case of Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 , we permit the appellants to place him under suspension immediately on his reinstatement. We, however, do not agree with the reasoning and the ultimate relief that His Lordship would extend to the delinquent. 5. Following the Apex Court decision in the case of Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 , we permit the appellants to place him under suspension immediately on his reinstatement. Whether he would be entitled to any salary and/or suspension allowance uptil date, would be a question to be decided by the Disciplinary Authority in the said proceeding. So long the disciplinary proceeding will continue, the authority would pay him the suspension allowance being equivalent to 50% of his salary. 6. Needless to mention, he would be entitled to defend himself and the Disciplinary Authority must extend all support to him so that he could defend himself in the proceeding. 7. The appellants must allow the respondent no. 1 to join immediately. If they wish to proceed against him departmentally in terms of this order they may put him under suspension and pay him the suspension allowance as fixed by us herein and conclude the proceeding within a period of six months from the date of submission of the charge-sheet. The orders impugned stands modified. 8. Both the appeals are thus disposed of without any order as to costs. Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible.