1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A.(MD).No.341 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 1. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, at Nagercoil. 2. The Assistant Director, Town Panchayats, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. : Appellants Vs. 1.E.Bhaskaran :1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.The Executive Officer, Palapallam Town Panchayat, Palapallam, Kanyakumari District. :2nd Respondent/3rd Respondent 3.The President, Palapallam Town Panchayat, Palapallam, Kanyakumari District. : 3rd Respondent/4th Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25.08.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.2170 of 2006 on the file of this Court. WP(MD)No.2170 of 2006:- Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in his proceedings No.313/2004, dated 14.10.2004, quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service. For Appellants : Mr.R.Janakiramalu Special Government Pleader For Respondent 1 : Mr.T.Arul For Respondent 2 : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate JUDGMENT ************* [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.SUGUNA, J] This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order dated 25.08.2010 passed in W.P.(MD).No.2170 of 2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. The said Writ Petition was filed challenging the order dated 14.10.2004, whereby the service of the first respondent/writ petitioner was terminated. 3. The case of the first respondent/writ petitioner is that while he was working as Assistant Lineman at Vellimalai Town Panchayat, the first appellant herein, by order dated 18.06.2003, had transferred him to Palapallam Town Panchayat as Street Light Maintenance Helper. In pursuance of the said order, he was relieved from duty on 30.06.2003 with a direction to him to join duty on 01.07.2003. However, from 07.07.2004, the first respondent/writ petitioner was unauthorizedly absent, consequently, a charge memo dated 07.09.2004 was issued to him calling upon his explanation. For the said charge memo, he had also submitted his reply on 08.09.2004, wherein he had admitted his unauthorized absence and requested that such default will not be committed in future. After receiving the said explanation from the first respondent/writ petitioner, the Executive Officer, Palapallam Town Panchayat, the second respondent herein, by order dated 14.10.2004, had terminated the service of the first respondent/writ petitioner. Challenging the said order, the first respondent/writ petitioner had filed W.P.(MD).No.2170 of 2006. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 25.08.2010, had allowed the said Writ Petition with a direction to the appellants to reinstate the first respondent/writ petitioner with back wages. As against the said order, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 4. According to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, when the first respondent/writ petitioner himself has admitted the guilt that he was unauthorizedly absent, question of conducting an enquiry does not arise, consequently, by the impugned order dated 14.10.2004, the service of the first respondent/writ petitioner was terminated. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the learned Single Judge had allowed the said Writ Petition on the sole ground that without conducting any enquiry, the service of the first respondent/writ petitioner was terminated. Basing on the above, the learned Special Government Pleader has prayed for setting aside of the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. It is the stand of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner that the first respondent was forced to give such a reply, but actually, inspite of his willingness to attend the work, he was not permitted to attend work. Basing on this alone, according to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the said Writ Petition was allowed and reinstatement in service with backwages was ordered. Basing on the above, the learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitoner has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeal. 6. We have considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 7. The order of termination was under challenge in the Writ Petition. The ground, on which the Writ Petition was allowed, is that before terminating the service of the first respondent/writ petitioner, no enquiry was conducted and basing on an admission made by the first respondent/writ petitioner, which is in dispute, the termination order ought not to have been passed. As rightly pointed out by the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Special Government Pleader, even if an order is passed without conducting any enquiry and when there is a dispute with regard to the admission of guilt, the matter should have been remitted back to the authority, who has passed such order. But, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of termination and ordered for reinstatement in service with back wages. The allegation levelled as against the first respondent/writ petitioner is that he was unauthorizedly absent for more than three months. Even if it is unauthorized absence for more than three months, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, an enquiry should have been conducted before passing the order of termination. Admittedly, without conducting any enquiry, a major punishment of termination from service has been imposed on the first respondent/writ petitioner. Consequently, the order of termination dated 14.10.2004 cannot be allowed to stand. However, instead of remitting the matter back to the authority concerned, since already orders have been passed by proceedings dated 27.07.2006 bringing the first respondent/writ petitioner into regular establishment, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met by permitting the first respondent/writ petitioner to rejoin duty without back wages. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 25.08.2010 made in W.P. (MD).No.2170 of 2006 is modified to the effect that the appellants are directed to permit the first respondent/writ petitioner to rejoin duty without back wages. However, the first respondent/writ petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the order dated 27.07.2006, whereby he was brought into regular establishment and he is also entitled for other consequential benefits, which have been extended to the incumbents by order dated 27.07.2006. With the above modification, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 2. The Assistant Director, Town Panchayats, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3. The Executive Officer, Palapallam Town Panchayat, Palapallam, Kanyakumari District. 4. The President, Palapallam Town Panchayat, Palapallam, Kanyakumari District. JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.341 of 2011 01.04.2011 NB/RJ/9.6.11/(3p/5c) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/