E KANNAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of the second respondent dated 3. 12. 2005 cancelling the appointment of petitioner.

(2.) PETITIONER appeared for selection of Police Constables recruitment conducted during 2001-2003 and the petitioner was placed in the waiting list of MBC at Sl. No. 74 vide the list published on 10. 6. 2003. Since the petitioner was not given appointment order, he appeared for subsequent selection held in the year 2005. On 30. 6. 2005, petitioner was issued with an appointment order by the second respondent based on the petitioner's placement in the waiting list prepared at the time of selection in 2001-2003. Petitioner was sent to Police Recruit School, vellore, for training. According to the petitioner, on 10. 11. 2005, at 8. 00 p. m. , petitioner was brought to Chennai along with some other Police personnel and on 11. 11. 2005 he was made to give a statement before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai, and thereafter the petitioner was again permitted to resume his training. From 5. 12. 2005, petitioner was not permitted to continue the training on the basis of the impugned order dated 3. 12. 2005 wherein the petitioner's appointment was cancelled, against which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order cancelling petitioner's appointment was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the same was passed without conducting enquiry, informing the charge against the petitioner and without giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case against the charges. Learned senior Counsel contended that the second respondent having found that prior to the date of appointment, petitioner's character and conduct was good, any subsequent allegation against the petitioner, ought to have been enquired into by framing regular charges and hence the action of the second respondent is in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decisions reported in (2000) 3 SCC 239 (V. P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab); (2000) 5 SCC 152 (Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U. P. and Others); and (2005) 7 SCC 518 (State of Haryana and Another v. Satyender Singh Rathore) for the proposition that an order of termination, passed on allegation, shall be passed only after complying with the principles of natural justice.