1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD).No.3670 of 2011 R.Kadirvel ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Senior Regional Manager Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited Trichy Region,Trichy 2. The District Manager Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (Trichy Region) Karur, Karur District .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.C.V.2/7207/2011 dated 14.03.2011 and quash the same as illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. For Petitioner : Mr. B.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Government Pleader O R D E R Challenging the order of the second respondent relieving the petitioner from his post as Assistant in TASMAC, the present Writ Petition was filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed to the post of Assistant in the office of the second respondent on contract basis. On 12.03.2011, the Inspector, Vengamedu Police Station, Karur District, conducted a ride in his house and recovered two bottles of Mansion House Brandy and one bottle of Maquintos Whisky and on the basis of the recovery, a case has been registered against the petitioner. While so, the impugned order was passed by the second respondent relieving the petitioner from service. The petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition challenging the said order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was relieved from service without framing any charges and without holding any enquiry. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Though the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents sought to support the order, he is unable to point out from the impugned order that the petitioner was served with charge memo and thereafter holding an enquiry, he was relieved from service. 5. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 14.03.2011. From the impugned order, it could be seen that the petitioner was relieved from service only on the basis of the First Information Report filed against him. From the impugned order, it could not be culled out that the petitioner was relieved from service after framing charges and holding enquiry. An order of relieving a person from the service causes civil consequences and hence, it requires a detailed enquiry. 6. Taking into account the said aspect, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 14.03.2011 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. 7. However, the second respondent is at liberty to pass orders afresh, if he chooses to do so after framing charges against the petitioner and after holding an enquiry. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Senior Regional Manager Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited Trichy Region, Trichy 2. The District Manager Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (Trichy Region) Karur, Karur District +1cc to M/S. B.Saravanan, Advocate, Sr.No.18435 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No.18519 W.P.(MD).No.3670 of 2011 vsg/SMA/21.6.2011/5C/2P 14.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/