IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.07.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P.NO.14525 OF 2009 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2009 A.Selvakumar ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. 2.The Assistant Director (Village Panchayat) Thiruvelanghadu Panchayat Union, Tiruvallur District. 3.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Thiruvelanghadu Panchayat Union, Tiruvallur District. 4.The President, Lakshmapuram Panchayat, Thiruvelanghadu Panchayat Union, Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 10.07.2009 in Pa.Tho./09, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits and back wages. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Viswanathan, Additional Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. The writ petition is filed to quash the order of the fourth respondent dated 10.07.2009 in his proceedings Pa.Tho./09 with consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service attendant benefits and backwages. 3.The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Assistant in the fourth respondent Panchayat on 01.08.1997. The petitioner was during 2006 absorbed at regular time scale of pay and was retained in the same village Panchayat. While so, the petitioner was served with one charge memo without date, in respect of the alleged misconduct of negligence of duty. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 08.06.2009. Having not satisfied with his explanation, the fourth respondent placed him under suspension pending proposed enquiry against the petitioner in his order dated 11.06.2009 and the same is followed by the order of the termination of the petitioner by the fourth respondent in his proceedings Pa.Tho/09 dated 10.07.2009. 4. The correctness and validity of such order is now challenged by the petitioner, mainly on the ground that the same is passed without any enquiry and without giving him any opportunity for being personally heard and that way the impugned order of termination of service is in violation of principles of natural justice and in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Where as the learned counsel for the respondent particularly the fourth respondent sought to defend the impugned order mainly by questioning the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that as per G.O.Ms.No.175, dated 05.12.2006 guidelines are issued in the matter of imposing penalty of stoppage of increment, withholding of promotion, temporary suspension etc., and as per clause 6 under the caption "Administrative Regulations", the petitioner, if he is aggrieved against the order of the fourth respondent ought to have preferred an appeal to the Black Development Officer within 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order and further appeals to the District Collector within 60 days from the date of disposal of appeal by the Black Development Officer and the petitioner has without availing the statutory remedies, no locus standi to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records made available herein. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is by the impugned order removed from service without any personal enquiry as contemplated under the service rules and as contemplated under clause 5 of the Government Order under the caption for Administrative Regulations contained the G.O.Ms.No. 175, dated 05.12.2006 relied upon on the side of the official respondents. The service rules and the clauses above referred to make it mandatory on the part of the authority concerned to conduct an enquiry into the allegations raised against the employee concerned before imposing any penalty, that too major penalty of removal of service which has the effect of depriving him of his livelihood thereby involving civil consequences. Further the authority concerned while holding such enquiry ought to have observed principles of natural justice by giving due opportunity to the petitioner to have his say upon the allegations so raised. As the order passed by the respondent is in the discharge of his quasi judicial functions it ought to have been passed in such a manner free from arbitrariness, bias and unreasonableness. Whereas the order impugned herein is passed in total derogation of the principles of natural justice and also Article 311 of the constitution thereby rendering it legally unsustainable and hence warrants interference. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by quashing the impugned order dated 10.07.2009 and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and other attendant benefits and back wages. However, the liberty is given to the fourth respondent, after paying the entire arrears of subsistence allowance due to the petitioner, to hold due enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the charge memo issued against him in accordance with the procedure laid down under law and after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner for being personally heard. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vsm To 1.The Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Assistant Director (Village Panchayat) Thiruvelanghadu Panchayat Union, Tiruvallur District. 3.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Thiruvelanghadu Panchayat Union, Tiruvallur District. 4.The President, Lakshmapuram Panchayat, Thiruvelanghadu Panchayat Union, Tiruvallur District. 1 cc To Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, SR.53127 1 cc To Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, Advocate, SR.53116 W.P.NO.14525 OF 2009 vs(co) pmk.24.8.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/