JUDGMENT : 1. The order of termination and the consequential appellate orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Shop Supervisor for the Retail Vending Shop in Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) in letter dated 20.11.2003 issued by the District Collector, Vellore District. 3. Accordingly, the writ petitioner joined as Shop Supervisor on contract basis on 23.11.2003. On account of an allegation of selling diluted liquors, the writ petitioner was terminated from service. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the allegations are false and further, no proper enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner states that the statement of delinquent alone was recorded and based on that, the disciplinary authority has taken a decision and terminated the services of the petitioner. When the punishment of termination was imposed as punitive, then, it is necessary that a proper enquiry to be conducted in compliance with the principles of natural justice. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the contentions by stating that an enquiry was conducted and the statement of the petitioner was recorded. By recording the statement and by verifying the facts, the authority competent issued the order of termination and therefore, there is no infirmity or otherwise in respect of the orders impugned in this writ petition. 5. Heard the arguments and the counter arguments of the respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner and the respondents and this Court is of the view that the very fact submitted by the petitioner that no proper enquiry was unable to disputed by the respondents. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is also silent in this regard. An enquiry has to be conducted by examining and cross-examining the witnesses and by producing the relevant documents and by giving reasonable opportunity to the delinquent officers. However, no such procedure had been followed at the time of conducting the enquiry against the writ petitioner. 6. The statement of the writ petitioner in this regard was not disputed by the respondents and the respondents are unable to produce the files in relation to the conduct of proper enquiry against the writ petitioner. However, no such procedure had been followed at the time of conducting the enquiry against the writ petitioner. 6. The statement of the writ petitioner in this regard was not disputed by the respondents and the respondents are unable to produce the files in relation to the conduct of proper enquiry against the writ petitioner. This being the factum of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the principles of natural justice has been violated in the case of the petitioner and a proper enquiry needs to be conducted, by providing opportunity under the Rules and by complying with the principles of natural justice. 7. In this view of the matter, the orders impugned in this writ petition stands quashed and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority for conducting a proper enquiry in accordance with rules by providing reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner and thereafter take a decision and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law and based on the materials available on record and communicate the same to the writ petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.