The petitioner was appointed on contractual basis in the post of bar supervisor in TASMAC. By the impugned order, his services were terminated. The impugned order is questioned on the ground that inasmuch as the same was passed on the ground of certain misconduct, it causes stigma.

2. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit.

3. I heard Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Thick Vijayapandiayan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. So far as the appointment of the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that it was purely on contractual basis as could be seen from the appointment order. In fact, one of the conditions in the appointment order relates to the summary dismissal for breach of the rules and regulations. By the said conditions imposed in the appointment order, the respondents are entitled to pass a summary order of termination and to that extent there cannot be any dispute.

5. However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner was not dismissed pursuant to the contract. For the purpose of dismissal the first respondent has relied upon a surprise inspection carried out in the TASMAC shop,