1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.11.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No. 1411 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011 V.Nagarajan ... Petitioner Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.H3/14765/2010 dated 11.6.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all entire monetary and service benefits from the date of removal from service and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the respondent refusing to provide re-employment to the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 3. The petitioner was sponsored through District Employment Office and appointed on daily wages as a Scavenger in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai and he joined duty on 24.4.1998. But from 5.6.1998, he did not report for duty. Therefore, by an order dated 25.6.1998, he was removed from service. 4. Without challenging the order of removal from service, the petitioner made a representation for re-employment. That request was turned down by an order dated 16.10.1998. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 181 of 2000. After the abolition of the Tribunal, it was transferred to this Court in W.P. No. 45984 of 2006. The Writ Petition was dismissed by Hon'ble Ms. Justice K.SUGUNA by a judgment dated 18.8.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. Challenging the order of the learned Judge, the petitioner filed an appeal in W.A. No. 105 of 2010 and the same was allowed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, by an order dated 22.4.2010. The operative portion of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench reads as follows: 4.According to the learned counsel, the appellant was absent from duty only from 13.6.1998 to 7.7.1998 and he reported to duty on 8.7.1998. The appellant sent a representation dated 16.12.1998 to the first respondent stating that he had some allergy because of insect bites while he was working and therefore, he should be permitted to join duty and the same was recommended by the first respondent stating that he should be taken on duty if the post is not filled up. It has not been considered till date. The above impugned order is not an order of termination simpliciter. It has been passed alleging that he was absent from duty "without prior permission or information". Therefore, he should have been given an opportunity. 5. Under those circumstances, an opportunity ought to have been given to the appellant to explain the circumstances under which he was absent. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside. The matter is sent back to the third respondent, who shall consider the explanation given by the appellant and then pass appropriate orders. 6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner made a representation. After considering the representation, the respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the request. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. At the outset, it should be pointed out that the petitioner worked for less than 1 1/2 months on daily wages. He joined duty on 24.4.1998 on daily wages. From 5.6.998 onwards, he did not report for duty. Therefore, such a person is not entitled to any protection. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that removal from service is a penalty, if it is for unauthorized absent from duty. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, an enquiry was necessary before imposing the penalty. Even persons temporarily appointed are entitled to protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is in violation of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench also. 9. At the outset as I have pointed out, the petitioner was appointed only on daily wages. He served as a daily wage employee for a period of about one month and 11 days. The position and status of a temporary employee is different from that of a daily wage earner, who did not even complete two months of service. Therefore, the non-engagement of the service of the petitioner after 5.6.1998 due to his failure to report for duty would not amount to a penalty imposed. 10. Even the Hon'ble Division Bench did not direct the respondent to frame charges, conduct an enquiry and thereafter impose a penalty. All that the Hon'ble Division Bench did was to direct the respondent to consider the explanation of the applicant and to pass orders. This has been done by the respondent. Therefore, the order of the Division Bench cannot be said to have been violated. In any case, the order of removal from service dated 25.6.2008 was not under challenge. What was challenged by the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 was the communication dated 16.10.1998, refusing to re-engage the service of the petitioner. Therefore, the question of holding an enquiry for refusing to engage the service of the petitioner would not arise. 11.Therefore, there are no merits in this Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.s are also closed. SD/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To, The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. ses W.P.(MD)No.1411 of 2011 1.11.2011 TR :10.11.2011: 3p/2c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/