ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order bearing No. 2015-16 dated 21.06.2016 vide Annexure-D. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Accountant on temporary basis on a monthly payment of Rs.6,000/-under Annexure-A dated 31.01.2009 by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner was posted to work as Accountant at Pattan Panchayat, Yellapur. While she was working as Accountant at Pattan Panchayat, Yellapur, a show-cause notice dated 13.05.2016 at Annexure-B came to be issued alleging dereliction of duty and that the petitioner is responsible for payment of Rs.16,63,800/-to the previous contractor, who was entrusted with the work of maintenance of street lights. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice under Annexure-C dated 24.05.2016. Under Annexure-D, the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petitioner from her contractual appointment on the ground that the petitioner has committed dereliction of duty; responsible for financial loss to the Pattan Panchayat and as the petitioner has violated the conditions of appointment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Pattan Panchayat. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Annexure-D order of dismissal dated 21.06.2016 is wholly illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that even though the petitioner was a temporary contractual employee, the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner could not have dismissed her attaching stigma without holding an enquiry. It is his submission that serious allegation of financial loss as well as dereliction of duty is alleged against the petitioner and when such being the nature of allegations, 2nd the respondent-Deputy Commissioner ought to have held an enquiry. It is not a case of terminating the service of the petitioner for no work nor regular appointment has been made. Even for terminating a temporary employee imputing financial loss and dereliction of duty, enquiry is necessary. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. It is not a case of terminating the service of the petitioner for no work nor regular appointment has been made. Even for terminating a temporary employee imputing financial loss and dereliction of duty, enquiry is necessary. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional 2nd Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-Deputy Commissioner submits that the allegations are such that the petitioner has committed dereliction of duty and responsible for financial loss, the Deputy Commissioner issued show-cause notice and on consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner has rightly taken action to dismiss the petitioner, which is in accordance with law. For removal or dismissal of a temporary employee, no enquiry would be necessary as the service condition itself would indicate that at any time the candidate appointed could be terminated from service. The opportunity given to the petitioner to submit her reply to the show-cause notice would sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only question which falls for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case is as to whether the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner is justified in dismissing the petitioner. The answer to the above point is in the negative and the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner is not justified in dismissing the petitioner, without conducting enquiry. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no dispute as to the appointment of the petitioner on temporary contractual basis under Annexure-A dated 31.01.2009 by the order of 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner. On appointment, the petitioner was posted to work as Accountant at Pattan Panchayat, Yellapur. Annexure-B show-cause notice discloses allegations against the petitioner to the effect dereliction of duty and responsible for financial loss. In the show-cause notice, it is stated that without calling for tender, as per resolution No.62/2 dated 17.02.2014 instead of Rs.5,88,350/-for Rs.7,98,450/-Annual maintenance of street light was entrusted to the previous contractor. Further, it is alleged that without calling tender in accordance with Transparency Act and Rules, previous tenderer was paid a sum of Rs.16,63,800/-. As such, the petitioner has committed dereliction of duty which amounts to misconduct under the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Further, it is alleged that without calling tender in accordance with Transparency Act and Rules, previous tenderer was paid a sum of Rs.16,63,800/-. As such, the petitioner has committed dereliction of duty which amounts to misconduct under the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. In the show-cause notice it is also stated that why disciplinary action should not be initiated against the petitioner. But, the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner failed to initiate disciplinary proceedings as proposed in the show-cause notice. The 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner on receipt of the reply by the petitioner, if he was not satisfied with the reply, ought to have initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner as contemplated under Annexure-B show-cause notice. But, instead of holding an enquiry, the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner under Annexure-D took action to dismiss the petitioner stating that the petitioner has committed grave misconduct and dereliction of duty which resulted in financial loss to the Pattan Panchayat. 8. A perusal of the impugned order would further disclose that the petitioner was responsible for net loss of Rs.5,43,209/-as the contractor, whose tender had expired was continued for further period of six months without following the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency Act and Rules. When such grave misconduct of financial loss is alleged against the petitioner and when the petitioner denied such dereliction of duty or financial loss, the respondents ought to have conducted enquiry as contemplated under the show-cause notice. A person cannot be removed attaching stigma making aspersions against her integrity. When an order attaches stigma against a person, then it should necessarily follow the enquiry. Moreover, the order of dismissal at Annexure-D dated 21.06.2016 is not a termination simpliciter. If the petitioner were to be terminated on the ground that there is no work nor regular appointment is made, then it would have been a different question altogether. At this stage, this Court need not go into the question as to whether the petitioner has committed any misconduct warranting punishment of dismissal. 9. For the reasons stated above, order bearing No. 2015-16 dated 21.06.2016 at Annexure-D passed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner is quashed. The respondents are at liberty to hold an enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the allegations and thereafter to impose punishment based on the report of the enquiry. The respondents are also directed to continue the petitioner in the post wherein she was working earlier. The respondents are at liberty to hold an enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the allegations and thereafter to impose punishment based on the report of the enquiry. The respondents are also directed to continue the petitioner in the post wherein she was working earlier. It is made clear that, the petitioner would not be entitled for any salary from the date of dismissal till she is reinstated. Reinstatement of the petitioner would not mean that she would be entitled for regularization of her appointment. The petitioner would be bound by the terms and conditions of her appointment. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. 11. In view of the disposal of the petition, pending I.A’s, if any, do not survive for consideration. Hence, the same are disposed of.