1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/04/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD) No.2641 of 2011 and MP(MD)NO.2 of 2011 A.Ananatharaj ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Project Director/Member Secretary Tamil Nadu State Aids Control Society Chennai 600 008. 2.The District Project Manager District Aids Prevention & Control Unit, Sivagangai District. 3.The Medical Officer, Incharge, Integrated Counselling & Testing Centre Government Hospital, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. ...Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned charge issued by the second respondent in ref. N.K.Nir 1-10/Ma.Ye.Tha.Ka.A/2010 dated 29.11.2010 and the consequent impugned order of termination passed by the first respondent in Proc.No.0799/A19/Estt/TANSACS/2009 dated 14.01.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service as Lab Technician with arrears of salary and all other monetary benefits accrued to the service of the petitioner. For petitioner ...Mr.M.Rajaraman For Respondents ...Mr.V.Rajasekaran Special Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition challenging the proceeding of the second respondent, dated 29.11.2010, a show cause notice and a consequent order of termination passed by the first respondent dated 14.01.2011. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Lab Technician in the Integrated Counselling and Testing Centre, (hereinafter referred to as 'ICTC') at Manamadurai Government Hospital, Sivagangai District on 19.06.2006. While so, on 29.11.2010, the second respondent issued a show cause notice alleging that he was said to have come to the office with the influence of alcohol and he was not doing his work properly. He gave an explanation for the same. However, without framing any charges and without conducting any enquiry, the impugned order was passed by the first respondent terminating the petitioner from service. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Hence, the said order is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent terminating the service of the petitioner without framing any charges and without conducting any enquiry. That apart, he has submitted that though a show cause notice was caused by the second respondent and a reply has been given by the petitioner, however, the reply was not considered by the first respondent. Thus, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader, who appears for the respondents, is unable to point out from the impugned order of the first respondent that the said order came to be passed after framing charges and after conducting due enquiry. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. Though the petitioner challenges the show cause notice, dated 29.11.2010, of the second respondent, I am not inclined to quash the said show cause notice, since the petitioner has already offered an explanation for the said show cause notice and it is for the second respondent or the first respondent to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner. However, the order of the first respondent, dated 14.01.2011, an order of termination is liable to be set aside, since without framing charges and without conducting any enquiry, the said order came to be passed. The order of termination causes a civil consequences and hence it requires a detailed enquiry. In the case on hand, except the show cause notice that has been caused by the second respondent, dated 29.11.2010, no charge memo has been issued to the petitioner, even though the petitioner has offered his explanation for the said show cause notice. After considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the first respondent or the second respondent ought to have framed charges against the petitioner and ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner for explaining the charges made against him. Thereafter the respondents are bound to hold the enquiry for the charges. However, the said procedure has not been followed by the respondents. 7. In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the order of the first respondent, dated 14.01.2011, on the sole ground that the said order came to be passed without framing charges and without holding any enquiry. In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, it is open to the first respondent to pass orders afresh, after framing charges and after getting explanation from the petitioner and after holding enquiry. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. SD/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Project Director/Member Secretary Tamil Nadu State Aids Control Society Chennai 600 008. 2.The District Project Manager District Aids Prevention & Control Unit, Sivagangai District. 3.The Medical Officer, Incharge, Integrated Counselling & Testing Centre Government Hospital, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. +1 CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.14590 RR W.P.(MD) No.2641 of 2011 and M.P.No.2 of 2011 19.04.2011 TR : 29.04.2011 : 3p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/