A RAMAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR RAMANATHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court was as follows :A. Ramar, the petitioner herein is seeking for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records from the file of the Collector, Ramanathapuram District, the first respondent herein, in his proceedings No. W1/75085/91, dated 29-4-1992 and to quash the same.THE facts that are required and relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows :-"THE Commissioner, Mudukulathur Panchayat Union, the second respondent herein invited applications for the post of Noon Meal Organiser.

(2.) THE petitioner applied for the said post. He was asked to attend the interview on 19-2-1992. He attended the interview and produced all relevant records. He was selected by the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, the second respondent. THE District Collector also issued orders appointing the petitioner as Noon Meal Organiser in his proceedings NAW 1/19257/92, dated 5-3-1992. THE petitioner was directed to pay the security deposit. Accordingly, he paid the security deposit of Rs. 600/- on 10-3-1992. THE petitioner joined the said post on 1-4-1992 and took charge as Noon Meal Organiser in Vikramapandiapuram Panchayat Union Noon Meal Centre and also submitted the joining report to the second respondent. While he was working as a Noon Meal Organiser, the Collector of the District, the first respondent herein by the order dated 29-4-1992 passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that he is having a reliable information that the appointment of the petitioner was made on the wrong information given by the petitioner and the same was served on him on 9-5-1992. Hence, this writ petition challenging the order of termination of the services of the petitioner dated 29-4-1992, the impugned order." A detailed counter has been filed by the first respondent. According to the counter, the petitioner had been temporarily appointed as Nutritious Meal Organiser by the order dated 5-3-1992 and when he attended the interview, he concealed the fact that he was serving as Makkal Nala Paniyalar and subsequently, he confessed that he acted as Makkal Nala Paniyalar and as such, he gave false information about his past service to the appointing authority and, therefore, he was terminated from services and since his appointment was purely temporary, the appointment order was cancelled without giving any prior notice.THE counsel for the petitioner as well as the Government Advocate appearing for the respondents have argued at length on the basis of their respective pleas.After having gone through the records and considered the submissions on either side, I am of the view that the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable in law for the following reasons.On the application requesting for the appointment as a Noon Meal Organiser sent by the petitioner, interview was conducted on 19-2-1992.

(3.) TO put it briefly, the principles of natural justice have to be observed in any enquiry unless the statute either expressly or by necessary implication prohibits it.The above principles have been enunciated by the Apex Court in D. K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.When these principles are taken into consideration, it can be safely concluded that in the present case, the authority who passed the impugned order has not followed the required procedure before taking punitive action of termination by giving the fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his case.In view of what is stated above, the impugned order shall be held to be illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. Thus, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 29-4-1992 is set aside. No costs.