JUDGMENT Shankar Ganapathi Pandit, J. - The order dated 20.04.2021 in WP No. 107263/2017 is under challenge in this intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, whereby the learned Single Judge set-aside the order of termination dated 20.06.2017 (Annexure-J) and directed the respondents therein i.e. Director of Municipal Administration to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. 2. The parties would be referred to as they stand before the Writ Court. 3. Before the Writ Court, the appellants were respondents and 1st respondent was the petitioner. 4. Heard Smt. K. Vidyavathi, learned Addl. Advocate General along with Sri. Praveen Uppar, learned HCGP for the appellants and Sri. Sunil Desai, learned counsel for 1st respondent and Sri. Rajashekar Gunjalli, learned counsel for 2nd respondent and perused the writ appeal papers. 5. Brief facts of the case are, the petitioner was initially appointed as Senior Programmer by order dated 16.12.2016 (Annexure-A). The order of appointment indicates that the appointment was on contract basis for a period of one year and the petitioner was entitled for consolidated pay of Rs. 13,000/- per month. The order of appointment would also indicate that on completion of one year period of service, contract could be terminated without issuing any notice. But the contract appointment of the petitioner as Senior Programmer was continued from time to time and even to this date. It is the case of the petitioner that remuneration is also increased from time to time. It is stated that the post of Senior Programmer is a sanctioned post and it finds place in the Cadre & Recruitment Rules of Municipal Administration Department, i.e. Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers & Employees) Rules, 2010 (Annexure-C). Method of recruitment to the post of Senior Programmer is 1/3rd by direct recruitment, 1/3rd by promotion from the post of Junior Programmer and remaining posts by deputation. It is the case of the petitioner that even though the petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned post and completed more than 15 years of service, his services are not absorbed/regularized. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Government had introduced a Scheme called Vajapayi Residential Housing Scheme (for short, 'Housing Scheme') through Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited, where the beneficiary would be entitled for financial assistance of Rs. 1,19,820/- which is to be released in stages of construction. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Government had introduced a Scheme called Vajapayi Residential Housing Scheme (for short, 'Housing Scheme') through Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited, where the beneficiary would be entitled for financial assistance of Rs. 1,19,820/- which is to be released in stages of construction. It is submitted that newspaper article dated 16.06.2017 was published alleging some irregularities in respect of release of funds for the beneficiaries of the Housing Scheme in the City Municipal Council of Gadag-Betageri, where the petitioner was working as Senior Programmer. It is alleged in the newspaper article that one Sri. Manjunath Mulagund, Member of City Municipal Counsel, Gadag-Betageri was involved in collecting illegal gratification from the beneficiaries and was also involved in manipulation and irregularities in implementing the Housing Scheme. The petitioner, who was working as Senior Programmer, was entrusted with the work of preparing GPS of residential buildings of the beneficiaries and it was alleged that the petitioner misused the GPS program and colluded with the above said member in releasing the funds without there being construction of the residential houses. Based on the said newspaper article, it is stated that 3rd respondent straightway proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner without even issuing any notice under the impugned order dated 20.06.2017 (Annexure-J). Challenging the said order of termination, the petitioner was before the Writ Court in WP No. 107263/2017. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides, by impugned order dated 20.04.2021, allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of termination and directed the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service on contract basis with all consequential benefits and with 25% backwages on the ground that the termination order is not preceded by any domestic enquiry and same is contrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. Smt. K. Vidyavathi, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the appellants-State submit that the petitioner who is a contract employee would not be entitled for any notice before termination and service of contract employee could be terminated at any time without any notice. It is contended that the service of the petitioner is terminated in terms of letter of appointment. Smt. K. Vidyavathi, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the appellants-State submit that the petitioner who is a contract employee would not be entitled for any notice before termination and service of contract employee could be terminated at any time without any notice. It is contended that the service of the petitioner is terminated in terms of letter of appointment. Further, it is submitted that petitioner's contract service has come to an end in the year 2018 itself and the termination of the petitioner's service is in accordance with terms and conditions of appointment order. 8. Learned AAG would further contend that the petitioner was entrusted with the responsibility of preparing GPS of residential buildings of the beneficiaries under Housing Scheme, misused the same and along with other officials was involved in misappropriation and in collecting illegal gratification from the beneficiaries. Therefore, on obtaining a Report from the 2nd respondent/Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Gadag-Betageri, services of the petitioner came to be terminated pending disciplinary enquiry. Learned AAG would submit that the temporary employee/contractual employee would not be entitled for any notice and temporary employee could be terminated in terms of the contract as well as under the relevant Rules applicable to the temporary employees. In support of said contention, learned AAG would rely upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court: a) Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation Vs. Paramjeet Singh (2019) 6 SCC 250 b) Union of India & others Vs. A.P. Bajpai & Others (2003) 2 SCC 433 c) State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs. Rekha Rani (2011) 11 SCC 441 d) State of Uttar Pradesh & Another Vs. ram Aadhar (2008) 12 SCC 136 e) State of Uttar Pradesh & Another Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691 . 9. Per contra, Sri. Sunil Desai, learned counsel for 1st respondent/petitioner would justify the order of learned Single Judge contending that the order of termination dated 20.06.2017 (Annexure-J) is passed without issuing any notice or without any enquiry against the petitioner. It is submitted that even though the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, was continued from time to time for more than 15 years and was entitled for minimum of notice before terminating his service. He submits that in the present case, respondents could not have terminated the petitioner from service without holding any enquiry. The order of termination attaches stigma against the petitioner. He submits that in the present case, respondents could not have terminated the petitioner from service without holding any enquiry. The order of termination attaches stigma against the petitioner. Learned counsel inviting attention of this Court to the order of termination would submit that the order of termination was passed on the basis of report of 2nd respondent/Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Gadag-Betageri. It is further submitted that the order of termination would indicate that the petitioner in collusion with other officials of City Municipal Council, Gadag-Betageri, misused the GPS program to release the funds without there being construction of the residential houses. It is submitted that it also alleges that the petitioner demanded Rs. 30,000/- from the beneficiary out of 1st installment, which is clear from the statement of the beneficiaries. Thus, learned counsel would submit that when such allegations are made, without holding any enquiry, respondents could not have terminated the services of the petitioner. He further submits that the order of termination attaches stigma against the petitioner, which would disentitle him from future employment. In support of his contentions, learned counsel would rely upon decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Goel Vs. Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Shimla & Another (1991) 3 SCC 291 and Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar 2008 AIR SCW 1190. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, the only moot question which falls for consideration in this intra-court appeal is as to, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents/State could have terminated service of the petitioner without affording any opportunity or conducting enquiry? 11. Answer to the above question would be in the negative for the following reasons. 12. It is not in dispute with regard to status of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is a contractual employee having been appointed under appointment order dated 16.12.2007 (Annexure-A) as Senior Programmer for a period of one year on consolidated salary of Rs. 13,000/- per month and was continued from time to time. Though on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that contract period of the petitioner has come to an end in the year 2018 itself, the petitioner has produced materials to establish that contractual service is continued even to this date. 13,000/- per month and was continued from time to time. Though on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that contract period of the petitioner has come to an end in the year 2018 itself, the petitioner has produced materials to establish that contractual service is continued even to this date. Annexure-D, office order of the 2nd respondent dated 5.1.2017 would make it clear that the remuneration of employees similarly situated as that of petitioner is increased to Rs. 39,386/- with effect from 1.1.2017 until further orders. The petitioner has also made available along with a memo dated 8.8.2022, OMs wherein services of Junior Programmer and Senior Programmer are extended till 2022. 13. It is settled position of law that even a temporary employee or daily wage employee cannot be terminated on the allegation of misappropriation or collecting illegal gratification or making any allegation of stigma. Such order of termination will have to be treated as an order of punishment, which shall be preceded by regular departmental enquiry. If it is an order of termination simplicitor without there being any allegation or stigma, the appointing authority would be well within jurisdiction to terminate the services of a temporary employee or daily wage employee. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Omprakash Goel (supra) has made it clear that, the order of termination even against a temporary employee, the Court has to see whether the order was made on the ground of misconduct and the Court would have to examine the real circumstances as well as basis and foundations of the order complained of. Further, it is also made clear that the order should not be to avoid enquiry as warranted by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said decision reads as under: 4. Further, it is also made clear that the order should not be to avoid enquiry as warranted by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said decision reads as under: 4. From the above decisions, it can be seen that it is well settled that in a case of an order of termination even that of a temporary employee the Court has to see whether the order was made on the ground of misconduct if such a complaint was made and in that process, the court would examine the real circumstances as well as the basis and foundation of the order complained of and if the court is satisfied that the termination of services is not so innocuous as claimed to be and if the circumstances further disclose that it is only a camouflage with a view to avoid an enquiry as warranted by Article 311(2) of the Constitution, then such a termination is liable to be quashed. In the abovementioned decisions, the impugned termination order was accordingly quashed. 5. It is not in dispute that a regular charge-sheet was served on the petitioner, as mentioned above, on August 21, 1981 and to the said charge sheet, list off documents also was appended on the basis of which the articles of charge were framed. The petitioner replied to these charges on September 7, 1981. Without reference to any of the charges or the reply the order of termination was passed on January 8, 1982 as already mentioned. In the counter-affidavit at more than one place it is admitted about the framing of the charges etc. regarding the news item which refers to the information given out by the petitioner. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that services of the petitioner were terminated as a probationer and not on the basis of the enquiry report which came after the services of the petitioner had been terminated. It can therefore be seen that an enquiry, in fact, was contemplated and was held but the report came into light after termination of the services of the petitioner. It is also submitted that on behalf of the petitioner that the audit report would show many irregularities as pointed out by the petitioner and that the petitioner acted honestly in pointing out the irregularities. It is not necessary for us to go into this question. It is also submitted that on behalf of the petitioner that the audit report would show many irregularities as pointed out by the petitioner and that the petitioner acted honestly in pointing out the irregularities. It is not necessary for us to go into this question. Having gone through the various records and also the admissions made in the counter-affidavit, we are satisfied that the termination order, though appears to be innocuous, was only intended to punish the petitioner for the misconduct, in respect of the allegations which are mentioned in the charges that were served on him. After serving the charge-sheet, as a matter of fact, the enquiry was conducted. But before the conclusion of the enquiry the termination order was passed. Therefore, it is not difficult to see that the form of the termination order is only a cloak for an order of punishment." 15. Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (supra) case relates to termination of a probationer, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that if the order of termination is founded on misconduct of financial irregularities, the order of termination would be stigmatic and same cannot be sustained. 16. A perusal of the order of termination dated 20.06.2017 (Annexure-J) makes it abundantly clear that termination of the petitioner is based on the allegation of misuse of GPS of construction of the residential houses of the beneficiaries under Housing Scheme in collusion with other officials of City Municipal Council of Gadag-Betageri. Misconduct or irregularities or misusing GPS is the foundation for termination. The order of termination further makes it clear that the termination is based on the report of 2nd respondent/Commissioner of City Municipal Council of Gadag-Betageri and also on the basis of newspaper report. 17. Preamble portion of the order of termination reads as follows: 18. A reading of the above portion makes it abundantly clear that the termination is for misuse of GPS; based on the statement of beneficiaries; report of 2nd respondent/Commissioner of City Municipal Council of Gadag-Betageri; based on the newspaper article and termination is pending disciplinary proceedings. 19. The order of termination reads that the termination with immediate effect pending disciplinary enquiry on the basis of the report of 2nd respondent/Commissioner. Termination pending enquiry is unheard of in service jurisprudence. An employee could be kept under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. 19. The order of termination reads that the termination with immediate effect pending disciplinary enquiry on the basis of the report of 2nd respondent/Commissioner. Termination pending enquiry is unheard of in service jurisprudence. An employee could be kept under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. Once employee is terminated, master and servant relationship comes to an end and no enquiry could be held against terminated employee unless otherwise Rule permits. In the present case, no Rule is brought to the notice of this Court permitting conduct of an enquiry after termination, that too against a temporary employee. When termination order itself states that the termination is pending enquiry, it is clear that no enquiry is held nor an opportunity is provided to the petitioner. A perusal of the order of termination dated 20.06.2017 (Annexure-J) would not indicate issuance of notice to the petitioner before passing order of termination. 20. Learned AAG placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court listed above. We have gone through all the judgments cited by the learned AAG and all those judgments relate to termination of temporary employees either after completion of their period of employment or they relate to termination simplicitor. There is no dispute with regard to the principle that the temporary employee has no right to hold the post; would not be entitled to an opportunity of hearing, when temporary employee is to be terminated on completion of the term or in terms of the order of appointment. But those decisions in no way would assist the case of the appellants/State. In the instant case, misconduct is the foundation for termination of the petitioner from service and thus it is a punitive order. If order of termination is punitive in nature, it shall necessarily be preceded by departmental enquiry. 21. Thus, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge is justified in setting aside the order of termination dated 20.06.2017 passed against the petitioner. But, however, the learned Single Judge ought to have reserved liberty to the appellants to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The allegation of financial irregularities made against the petitioner in the order of termination is very serious in nature and would amount to acting against the interest of the State. But, however, the learned Single Judge ought to have reserved liberty to the appellants to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The allegation of financial irregularities made against the petitioner in the order of termination is very serious in nature and would amount to acting against the interest of the State. Therefore, liberty is to be reserved to the respondents/State to hold proper enquiry against the petitioner, if necessary by keeping him under suspension pending enquiry, by paying subsistence allowance. 22. In the light of the above, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) Writ Appeal is dismissed. b) The order dated 20.04.2021 passed in WP No. 107263/2017 by the learned Single Judge is hereby confirmed; c) However, liberty is reserved to the appellants/State Government to issue charge memo and hold proper enquiry in the matter, provided such charge memo is issued within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment; d) Liberty is also reserved to keep the petitioner under suspension, if necessary pending enquiry; e) Four months' time is granted to the appellants to implement the above direction; f) In view of disposal of the writ appeal, further proceedings in the contempt petition are dropped for the present with liberty to initiate fresh contempt proceedings, if need be.