1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 19.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P(MD)No.13436 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 G.Durai Raj .. Petitioner Vs 1. The Commissioner of Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities, Chennai-5. 2. The District Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Officer, Collectorate Complex, Thoothukudi District. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the first respondent pertaining to its order in Proc.Roc.No.P.N.6115/11, dated 18.11.2011 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the first and second respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as a Typist in the second respondent office. For Petitioner : M/s.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents : Mr.T.R.Janarthanam Addl. Govt.Pleader ORDER The petitioner/G.Durairaj was appointed as Typist through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 4.5.2011 in the first respondent office, namely,the Commissioner of Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities, Chennai-5. After few months, he was transferred to the office of the second respondent, the District Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Officer, Thoothukudi on 21.7.2011. While he was working in the second respondent office, the second respondent passed the impugned order relieving the petitioner from the office of the second respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Typist through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 4.5.2011 by posting him in the office of the first respondent he was transferred to the office of the second respondent. While he was working in the office of the second respondent along with other officials from 10 A.M. to 6.30 p.m, even on the crucial date ie. on 18.11.2011, but after office hours when he left for home, the impugned order was passed stating that the second respondent when tried to contact over phone to take some particulars, the second respondent could not contact the petitioner over phone and for the reason that the petitioner has allegedly left the office of the second respondent before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 others left the office, he has erroneously passed the relieving order relieving the petitioner from service without notice much less any enquiry. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order passed without prior notice or holding enquiry is liable to be set aside. 3. Even if the petitioner has committed any act of misconduct, which would give rise to initiation of any departmental proceedings, the second respondent ought not to have passed the present order relieving the petitioner from service, without following the principles of natural justice. 4. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner who was appointed as a Typist through T.N.P.S.C has been relieved from service without any prior notice much less any explanation whatsoever obtained from the petitioner. 5. Though the learned Additional Government Pleader submits that he has received counter affidavit in the present Writ Petition sent by the second respondent to be filed in the present Writ petition and for which he wanted this Court to postpone the matter to some other date, this Court does not find any reason to adjourn the case for any future date. The reason being that it is an admitted case that the petitioner was appointed through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as a Typist and was posted on 14.5.2011 in the first respondent office and then transferred to the office of the second respondent on 14.11.2011 and if for any reason finding aggrieved by the petitioner's method of working, he should have been issued with proper notice and thereupon should have proceeded departmentally. As he has not done so, this Court is not inclined to accept the explanation offered by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents to support the impugned order and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner, if so advised in accordance with law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Commissioner of Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities, Chennai-5. 2. The District Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Officer, Collectorate Complex, Thoothukudi District. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.44698 W.P(MD)No.13436 OF 2011 19.12.2011 vsn RJ/3.1.12 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/