1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.12716 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 M.Muthuselvam ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Joint Director and Project Officer cum Secretary,District Supply and Marketing Society, Mahalir Thittam Unit),Trichy District. 2. Ms.P.Jayalakshmi Now working as Joint Director and Project Officer cum Secretary,District Supply and Marketing Society, Mahalir Thittam Unit),Trichy District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent passed in Na.Ka.No.1245/2010/DSMS dated 24.10.2011 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to be reinstated into the post of Manager under the respondents with arrears of salary and with all monetary and attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Kathiravan For Respondents: Mr.B.Pugalenthi, Special Govt. Pleader O R D E R The petitioner, who was temporarily appointed to the post of Manager for District Supply and Marketing Society, Trichy, on 16.05.2007, was issued with the show cause notice dated 10.10.2011, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why he should not be made to face departmental enquiry. On receipt of the said show cause notice, dated 10.10.2011, consisting of 10 allegations, the petitioner on 15.10.2011, submitted his detailed explanation denying all the charges. After receipt of the said explanation, the appointing authority, viz., the first respondent, the Joint Director and Project Officer-cum-Secretary, District Supply and Marketing Society, Trichy, has decided to proceed further, on reaching the conclusion that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory to her, on the very same day i.e., 24.10.2011, he was issued with the order of termination. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by assailing the impugned order dated 24.10.2011 terminating the service of the petitioner from the post of Manager, vehemently submitted that it is the case where the first respondent, who is the appointing authority, issued the show cause notice on 10.10.2011, asking the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why he should not be proceeded for the charges mentioned in the show cause notice, on receipt of the explanation dated 15.10.2011 submitted by the petitioner, after coming to the conclusion on 24.10.2011 that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner's case should be properly dealt with, without even holding further enquiry, on the very same day i.e., 24.10.2011, has arbitrarily and erroneously passed the final order terminating the service of the petitioner from the post of Manager of the District Supply and Marketing Society, Trichy. He contended that the said arbitrary exercise of power in the form of present impugned order is wholly vitiated, as the first respondent has not only acted as a prosecutor but also acted as a Judge on the show cause notice issued by herself. This is totally contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Lakshmanakumar, V.L. v. The District Manager, "TASMAC" Limited reported in 2006(1) CTC 660. 3. Further submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, on the basis of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Lakshmanakumar, V.L. v. The District Manager, "TASMAC" Limited reported in 2006(1) CTC 660, this Court has held that termination of services of employee employed on contract basis cannot be passed without there being a proper enquiry, if there is a charge memo issued against the concerned person. Adding further the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was issued with the show cause notice followed by his explanation to the said show cause notice, the respondent on receipt of the explanation should have held a proper enquiry by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to ventilate his stand. Pleaded that as the first respondent has not complied with the conditions in the above mentioned judgment, the present impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent contended that the petitioner at the time of his appointment to the post of Manager for District Supply and Marketing Society, Trichy, was made known that his appointment was purely temporary and the appointment order dated 16.05.2007 also made clear that his service may be terminated without any prior notice. However, when complaint was received, the petitioner was issued with the show cause notice dated 10.10.2011 by the first respondent calling upon him to submit his explanation as to why he should not be proceeded for the charges mentioned therein. Thereafter, the petitioner also submitted his explanation on 15.10.2011. The said explanation was not satisfactory to the first respondent, who being the appointing authority, has finally passed the order of termination. Further, as the nature of the appointment order also stands mentioned that the service may be terminated without any prior notice, the petitioner is not entitled to ask for enquiry as there is no provision for holding enquiry. 5. Heard the parties on both sides. 6. It is not in controversy that the petitioner was appointed on 16.05.2007 as Manager for District supply and Marketing Society, Trichy, subject to the condition that his appointment is purely temporary and his service may be terminated without any prior notice. But after the first respondent received certain complaints, he framed various charges running to 10 in numbers and issued a show cause notice on 10.10.2011, calling upon the petitioner to submit his detailed explanation as to why he should not be proceeded further departmentally. When the show cause notice dated 10.10.2011 has clearly mentioned that the petitioner should be proceeded further so as to find out the truth of the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice dated 10.10.2011, it goes without saying that the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 respondent even after receiving the explanation dated 15.10.2011 from the petitioner should have further continued the rest of the enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer to prove charges. Even though the first respondent, who is the appointing authority, has received and considered the petitioner's explanation dated 15.10.2011, on 24.10.2011, has decided to proceed further. On the other hand, on the very same day, the very same respondent, who issued the show cause notice, has wrongly passed the termination order. It shows that the petitioner has been visited with the termination order carrying civil consequences. This is not only arbitrary but also amounting to a severe violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. In that view of the matter, as held by this Court in the case of Lakshmanakumar, V.L. v. The District Manager, "TASMAC" Limited reported in 2006(1) CTC 660, when an order of termination involves civil consequences and consequently amounts to stigma, the same cannot be passed without there being a charge memo, enquiry and reaching the findings as to those charges. This proposition of law has been recently reiterated by the Apex Court in the judgment viz., State of Hariyana vs. Satyender Singh Rathore, 2005 (7) SCC 518, wherein the Apex Court has held that if findings were arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as "founded" on the allegations and will be bad. 8. In the light of the above said order, when this Court looks at the show cause notice dated 10.10.2011 followed by explanation dated 15.10.2011 and the final order dated 24.10.2011, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to face an enquiry. As the first respondent has not appointed an enquiry officer to go into the correctness of the allegation mentioned in the show cause notice, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order of termination dated 24.10.2011 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. 9. It is needless to mention that the petitioner will be reinstated and then it is left open to the respondents to proceed further by issuing proper show cause notice in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR(ACCOUNTS) /TRUE COPY/ AKV ASST REGISTRAR To 1. The Joint Director and Project Officer cum Secretary,District Supply and Marketing Society, (Mahalir Thittam Unit),Trichy District. 2. Ms.P.Jayalakshmi Now working as Joint Director and Project Officer cum Secretary,District Supply and Marketing Society, Mahalir Thittam Unit),Trichy District. 1CC To The Special Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai SR No.42535 1cc To Mr.Veera katheravan, Advocate SR No.42293 SB:09/01/2012 3P 5C W.P.(MD)No.12716 of 2011 01.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/