ORDER : NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. 1. In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the impugned orders vide Rc.No.A/21/MPEOs/2019, dated 19.07.2023, issued by Respondent No.3 terminating the Petitioner as Multi- Purpose Extension Officer (MPEO), working at Village Secretariat, Narpala Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District, without conducting any enquiry, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as Multi-Purpose Extension Officer (MPEO) on contract basis by Respondent No.2 vide Proceedings in Rc.No.A/21/MPEOs/2019, dated 10.08.2020 at Maddipalli Village, Puthur Mandal and now posted as MPEO at Village Secretariat, Narapala Village & Mandal and has been discharging her duties. 3. While so, the Petitioner, on instructions of the higher authorities, went to Nayanapalli Village on 03.04.2023 and after conducting Grama Sabha with regard to assessment of crop damage along with other officials of Horticulture i.e. MPEO, Surveyor, PPO, VRA etc. and handing over the records to co-employee by name Muneendra, straight away left to Kasi (Varanasi) on 04.04.2023. 4. As the Petitioner had left to Varanasi without any prior intimation or permission from the Respondent-authorities, a show- cause notice was issued to her on 17.04.2023 stating that the Petitioner had absconded from duty, which resulted delay in enumeration of crop damage etc., The Petitioner submitted her explanation stating that as she lost her mobile, she could not take prior permission about her leave and that she will not repeat such acts in future. However, Respondent No.3 issued the impugned order vide Rc.No.A/21/MPEOs/2019, dated 19.07.2023 terminating the services of the Petitioner without taking a lenient view of the issue. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 5. In the Counter-Affidavit filed by Respondent No.3 it is stated that the Commissioner of Horticulture had issued instructions vide Reference No.P&M(2)03/2022, dated 20.03.2023 to take up enumeration of crop damages, which was more than 33% by duly forming Mandal level teams due to unseasonal rains/hailstorms occurred during the month of March, 2023. 6. In compliance of the above instructions, Respondent No.2 has communicated the guidelines of the enumeration work to all the Horticulture Officers with instructions to submit enumeration report immediately. Accordingly, it is stated that the Horticulture Officer, Narapala has reported vide Lr.No. Nil, dated 12.04.2023 that the Petitioner was allotted for enumeration of crop damage work, attended to the work upto 03.04.2023 and she absconded from duty since 04.04.2023 without applying any leave or without prior permission from the higher authorities. Accordingly, it is stated that the Horticulture Officer, Narapala has reported vide Lr.No. Nil, dated 12.04.2023 that the Petitioner was allotted for enumeration of crop damage work, attended to the work upto 03.04.2023 and she absconded from duty since 04.04.2023 without applying any leave or without prior permission from the higher authorities. In that context, the order of termination of the Petitioner is sustainable. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order was issued without conducting any enquiry and without compliance of principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Village and Ward Secretariat would submit that as the Petitioner had admittedly left to Varanasi and had absconded from duties since 04.04.2023, the impugned order need not be interfered with. 9. The facts that the Petitioner had left to Varanasi on 03.04.2023 and the Petitioner had joined service on 17.04.2023 are not in dispute and the un-authorized absence of the Petitioner appears to be about 10 to 12 days. 10. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in The State of A.P, rep. by its Principal Secretary v. K. Madhu Phani and another, (2018) 1 ALT 125 (DB) held that even the outsourcing employees are entitled to an enquiry to be conducted when their services are being terminated on stigmatic grounds. The Paragraph No.4 thereof is extracted hereunder; “ In our opinion, even in case of an outsourced employee, he cannot be stigmatized without an enquiry and in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the elements of prima facie case balance of convenience and irreparable injury in making the interim order absolute ”. 11. Therefore, as the impugned order of termination is stigmatic and has the bearing on the employment of the Petitioner, the Respondents are bound to conduct enquiry in compliance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions; (i) The impugned orders vide Rc.No.A/21/MPEOs/2019, dated 19.07.2023, issued by Respondent No.3 terminating the Petitioner as Multi-Purpose Extension Officer (MPEO) is set-aside; (ii) The Respondents are directed to examine imposing of any punishment other than the order of termination of the Petitioner; (iii) No order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.