P. B. Bajanthri, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:— (i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Order dated 23.09.2019 in which the petitioner has been terminated/removed from service as Executive Assistant at Jehanabad Circle, Jehanabad. (ii) For any other consequential relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is entitle by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. Petitioner was appointed on contract basis to the post of Executive Assistant on 19.10.2013. State Government has evolved policy decision on 26.02.2019 (Annexure-2) to extend the tenure of such of those contract appointees till attaining 60 years with rider which reads as under:— 1- fcgkj iz'kklfud lqèkkj fe'ku lkslkbVh ds vèkhu l`ftr lafonkRed in ij fu;ksftr vkbZñVhñ izcaèkd] vkbZñVhñ lgk;d rFkk dk;Zikyd lgk;d dh fu;kstu vofèk ds lacaèk esa%& 1- fcgkj iz'kklfud lqèkkj fe'ku lkslkbVh varxZr lafonk ij fu;ksftr ,oa dk;Zjr vkbZñVhñ izcaèkd] vkbZñVhñ lgk;d rFkk dk;Zikyd lgk;d dk fu;kstu iwjh rjg vLFkk;h gS rFkk ;kstuk vofèk lekfIr vFkok 60 o"kZ dh vk;q] tks igys ykxw gks] rd ds fy, gSA iQyr% lafonk dfeZ;ksa dk izR;sd o"kZ lafonk vofèk foLrkj fd;s tkus dh vko';drk ugha gksxhA 2- vLoLFkrk ;k vuq'kklfud vkèkkj ij vFkok lsok vlarks"ktud gksus ds dkj.k ;kstuk vofèk vFkok 60 o"kZ dh vk;q tks igys ykxw gks ds iwoZ Hkh fu;qfDr izkfèkdkj }kjk lsok lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA 3- lafonk fu;kstu dh vU; 'krs± fu;kstu ds le; fuxZr fu;kstu i=k@,djkjukek esa vafdr ;Fkkor jgsaxhA 4. Petitioner’s services have been dispensed/terminated on 23.09.2019. The respondents have issued show cause notice after show cause notice, petitioner had submitted reply and thereafter respondents proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner on 23.09.2019. Thus, the petitioner has presented this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that termination is based on serious allegations levelled against the petitioner that petitioner was extracting money from the agents. In that regard, there is a complaint dated 27.07.2019 stated to have been submitted by one Mr. Rajiv Kumar. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in identical circumstances with reference to complaint made by Mr. In that regard, there is a complaint dated 27.07.2019 stated to have been submitted by one Mr. Rajiv Kumar. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in identical circumstances with reference to complaint made by Mr. Rajiv Kumar, an application was filed under R.T.I. for which there was a reply from the respondents to the extent that there was no such complaint, therefore, in the absence of complaint or initiation of enquiry, termination of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. It is also submitted that even termination against a temporary employee is based on allegations, in such circumstance domestic enquiry is warranted for the reasons that it would be stigmatic order and future employment of such person would be affected. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the aforesaid contention and submitted that termination is based on the complaint submitted by Mr Rajiv Kumar dated 27.07.2019 read with the Clause II of the communication dated 26.02.2019 (Annexure 2). Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned action. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis on 19.10.2013 and petitioner is entitle to continue in service till he attains 60 years in terms of Annexure - 2 dated 26.02.2019 subject to fulfilling the conditions stipulated thereunder. 10. Perusal of the order of termination dated 23.09.2019, it is crystal clear that petitioner has not been provided an opportunity of hearing like examining and cross examination of Mr. Rajiv Kumar who is the complainant in the present matter. He has not been cited as witness in the enquiry. Moreover, charge memo has not been issued in support of the alleged allegations so as to examine the relevant witnesses. The entire case is with reference to alleged complaint given by Mr. Rajiv Kumar against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such complaint is not existing as is evident from the document made available in identical matters by the respondents. In the light of these facts and circumstances and the fact that the petitioner’s services have been terminated on the basis of the allegations and it attaches stigma, therefore, domestic enquiry is warranted irrespective of whether temporary or permanent employee. Hence the petitioner has made out a case. 11. Accordingly, order dated 23.09.2019 stands set aside. 12. Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement. Hence the petitioner has made out a case. 11. Accordingly, order dated 23.09.2019 stands set aside. 12. Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement. The concerned respondents are hereby directed to initiate and complete the enquiry proceedings if it is warranted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. If the enquiry is not initiated, in that event, the petitioner is entitled to monetary benefits from the date of termination till reinstatement. If enquiry is initiated then the intervening period would be regulated in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.