1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)No.6182 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 P.Ram Kumar : Petitioner Vs. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Madurai, Represented by its District Manager, Madurai. : Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 04.06.2005 passed by the respondent's Corporation made in Nakka.No.1403/2004/Aa and quash the same and also, consequently, to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with all consequential benefits forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham For Respondent : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Government Pleader ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned order dated 04.06.2005 passed by the respondent Corporation, removing the petitioner from service and consequently, seeking a direction to the respondent to reinstate him with continuity of service. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Salesman on 28.11.2003. He was roped into a crime on the basis of a complaint given by the Assistant Manager, attached to the respondent Corporation on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai, in Crime No.65 of 2005 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. While so, by proceeding dated 04.06.2005, he was terminated from service. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for the reliefs stated earlier. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the impugned order came to be passed without framing charges and without holding any enquiry. He has further submitted that even assuming that certain lapses have been committed by the petitioner, he should have been served with a charge memo seeking an explanation for the charges and thereafter, after holding an enquiry, an order should have been passed. However, in the case on hand, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the said procedure was not followed. 6. Though the learned Special Government Pleader sought to support the order passed by the respondent, he is unable to point out from the impugned order that the said order came to be passed, after due notice to the petitioner. 7. In view of the above stated position, I am of the considered view that the order of termination passed against the petitioner without framing charges and without holding enquiry is against the principles of all canons of law. 8. In view of the same, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 04.06.2005 and accordingly, set aside and the Writ Petition, therefore, stands allowed. However, since the petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 04.06.2005 only in the year 2011, he is not entitled to any backwages from 04.06.2005 to 30.04.2011, when he came to this Court. However, the respondent is directed to pass suitable orders reinstating the petitioner in service, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, Advocate SR.No.18606 SML akm/27.06.11 /2p-3c/ Order made in W.P.(MD)No.6182 of 2011 Dated: 15.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/