THATCHINAMOORTHY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUDUKKOTTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is against the order of termination passed by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 18.11.2008.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 08.07.2003 on contract basis in the third respondent's office. The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cell, Pudukkottai had registered a case against one Chidamparam and the petitioner in Crime No.5 of 2008 for the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 7 of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988. According to the petitioner, there was no demand of any bribe whatsoever made by the petitioner and even an overall reading of the First Information Report would show that the allegations were made only against the first accused namely, the said Chidambaram. Neither the police nor the second respondent did take any action against the said Chidambaram. On the other hand, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, the petitioner was terminated from service by passing the impugned order. Though very many grounds are raised in the writ petition challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

(3.) THOUGH a counter affidavit is filed by the respondents explaining the circumstances under which the petitioner was terminated from service, they have not stated anywhere as to whether the petitioner was put on any notice or they have terminated the service of the petitioner after conducting any enquiry. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is not a termination simplicitor, but on the other hand, it was passed on the ground that the petitioner was arrested by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, for demanding and accepting bribe from one K.Kamal. Thus, from the very reading of the impugned order, it is seen that the same can be passed by making allegation of corruption against the petitioner and also referring to the criminal case filed against him. If that being the case, in my considered view, the respondent more particularly, the second respondent is not entitled to pass the order of termination straight away without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by issuing a notice and thereafter, by conducting an enquiry. In this case, there was no notice or charge memo issued against the petitioner nor any enquiry was also conducted. No doubt, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, still the fact remains that the petitioner was appointed as early as on 08.07.2003 and was continuously working for more than five years under the respondents and if that being the position, even assuming that the said appointment was on contract basis, when the order of termination attaches stigma, certainly, the petitioner is entitled to notice before an order of termination was passed against him. This Court, on very many occasion, held that order of termination passed attaching stigma without notice is invalid and the same is liable to be set aside. I, myself, considered a similar issue in the case of Chockalingam vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai reported in 2012(1) CWC 288 and set aside the order of termination therein on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. By following the very same decision, the impugned order is set aside. It is open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner in a manner known to law by following the principles of natural justice.