M THIRUNAVUKKARASU Vs. SECRETARY TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. L. S. M. Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate representing the respondent and perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the order of the respondent dated 20. 7. 2006 in terminating his temporary service. The petitioner was an Ex-serviceman and after putting in 20 years of service, he got retired from the Indian Air Force. He attended an interview for the post of Sergeant in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. By an order dated 06. 01. 2006, the petitioner was appointed temporarily in the post of Sergeant in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly under Rule 17 (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat Service Rules [for short 'rules']. It was also stated in paragraph 4 of the appointment order that his post was temporary and it can be terminated at any time without any notice. It is also stated that on the basis of such temporary employment, he cannot seek for any additional right while in service of the Tamil Nadu Assembly. The petitioner joined duty on 09. 01. 2006 accepting the said offer of employment. Subsequently, he was given a memo dated 26. 5. 2006 stating that he had failed to carry out the orders of the Honourable Speaker of the Assembly. The petitioner gave a reply dated 27. 5. 2006 stating that though he wanted to implement the orders, the Assembly guards did not come to help him. He also gave an undertaking that in future, he will be more responsible. As the respondent was not satisfied with the reply furnished by him, a charge memo was framed under Rule 33 (b) of the Rules. The petitioner after seeking extension of time to submit his explanation, gave his explanation dated 15. 6. 2006 denying the charges levelled against him. However, instead of pursuing the remedy of conducting an enquiry and proving the charges, the respondent abandoned that course of action and invoked power under Rule 17 (a) (i) of the Rules and terminated the service of the petitioner by an order dated 20. 7. 2006. It is this order that is under challenge as noted already.

(3.) MR. S. Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the order of termination is innocuously worded, it is based upon the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner and, therefore, the respondent ought to have conducted an enquiry in terms of the Rules. This, according to him, is a violation of all fair play and norms and if it is allowed, it will lead to hire and fire policy and the petitioner has been condemned without being heard.