AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants.
This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.9.2006 made in W.P. No. 17842 of 2006, by which the learned
Single Judge has set aside the impugned order of the second appellant dated 30.6.1995, by which the first respondent herein, who was the original
writ petitioner, was dismissed from service.
The brief facts relating to the filing of the writ petition are that the first respondent was appointed as a part-time Noon Meal Organizer under the
second respondent. It appears that a charge memo was issued by the second appellant on 19.10.1994, alleging that the first respondent has
overstayed on leave after the expiry of the sanctioned leave from 16.6.1994 to 15.7.1994 and therefore, it amounted to willful disobedience of the
orders of the superiors in rejoining the duty. It is the admitted fact that the first respondent has submitted his explanation to the charge memo on
15.11.1994, denying the charges. In spite of the same, the second appellant has passed the order dated 30.6.1995, dismissing the first respondent
from service, without conducting any enquiry. The order of dismissal, which was challenged in the writ petition, passed by the second appellant has
given a reason that the Panchayat Union Commissioner, Pudupalayam has given a report stating that the first respondent has not given leave
application after 30.11.1994 and that the first respondent is unfit to join duty and continue to work. It is purely based on the said report of the
Panchayat Union Commissioner, Pudupalayam, the second appellant passed the impugned order on 30.6.1995, dismissing the first respondent
from service.
It is clear, on the face of the impugned order of dismissal dated 30.6.1995, that (i) the second appellant has not conducted any enquiry,
especially in the circumstances that the first respondent has submitted his explanation, denying the charges, and straight away passed the order of
dismissal, which has to be set aside, on the basis of the violation of the principles of natural justice; and (ii) the impugned order shows as if the
second appellant has relied upon a report of the Panchayat Union Commissioner, Pudupalayam and placing reliance on such a report, without
furnishing a copy of the same to the first respondent/delinquent officer, is patently against the principles of law.
The learned Special Government Pleader, who is appearing for the appellants, would now submit that the post held by the first respondent was
part-time Noon Meal Organizer and as per the Government Order, the post of Noon Meal Organizer is not governed by any Service Rules and
therefore, according to him, the finding of the learned Judge that there is a violation of Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, is not correct. He has also produced the Government Order.
We have perused the Government Order. A reference to G.O.Ms. No. 370, Backward Classes Welfare, Nutritious Meal Programme and
Social Welfare Department, dated 16.4.1989 makes it clear that the persons employed under the Nutritious Meal Programme, sanctioned by the
Government Order, are only part-time workers and they are not governed by any Service Rules. The Government Order further states that the
orders regarding the terms and conditions of service, disciplinary procedure and appointments would be issued separately. The Government Order
is as follows:
Government of Tamil Nadu
Abstract
Tamil Nadu Government Nutritious Meal Programme � Employees working under the Programme made Permanent part-time employees of the
respective Local Bodies � Ordered
Backward Classes Welfare, Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department
G.O.Ms. No. 370 Dated: 16.4.1989
G.O.Ms. No. 875, Public (TPEP) Department,
dated 28.5.1982
G.O.Ms. No. 858, Public (TPEP) Department,
dated 28.5.1982
G.O.Ms. No. 277, Public (CMNMP) Department,
dated 22.2.1983
G.O.Ms. No. 1243, Public (CMNMP) Department,
dated 31.7.1984
ORDER
In the G.O. first cited, the Government have introduced a scheme for the supply of free nutritious Noon Meal to the poor children covering the age
group from 2 to 10 with effect from 1st July, 1982. The Government have also sanctioned for each of the school centres in the non-Central
Kitchen areas, the post of one part-time cook and one helper to assist the cook to be appointed per day from among the local residents. In the
G.O. second cited, the Government have ordered that the children in the age group of 2, 3 and 4 will be catered to by the Child Welfare Centres
to be organized by the Department of Social Welfare through the community development Blocks. Each centre has been ordered to be managed
by the Child Welfare Organizer with 2 Child Welfare Assistants under the over all control of the Block Development Office. In the G.O. third
cited, the Government have sanctioned the creation of 33,831 post of part-time Nutritious Meal Organizers, one in each School Building Centre
under all types of managements and under all the administrative Departments detailed in the G.O. with a payment of a Honorarium to each of the
organizer. In the G.O. fourth cited, sanction was accorded to the creation of 3360 temporary posts of part-time Nutritious Meal Organizers,
Cooks and Helpers for appointment in School Feeding Centres thereby extending the scheme to school children in the age Group 10 to 15 from
15th September, 1984. Thus the persons employed under the Nutritious Meal Programme sanctioned above are only part-time workers not
governed by any service rules. The cooks and helpers appointed in the schools and called consolidated amount for all the months except during
Summer vacation. More than 2 lakhs of employees employed under the programme remain as temporary part-time workers from the date of
regular appointment. Consequent on the representations made by the Nutritious Meal Organizers Associations from time to time, the Government
have carefully examined the question of giving them no accountancy so that they may be motivated to work more effective, by dedicating
themselves towards the successful implementation of the programme. Since the programme is one of the social welfare resources like other
developmental programmes implemented by the development with the Assistance of the Local Bodies, these employees cannot be continued on
adhoc basis for ever. The Government have therefore, now decided to appoint the employees working under the programme of the post Part-time
employees of the respective local bodies. Accordingly, Government direct that all the Child Welfare Organizers, Child Welfare Assistants,
Nutritious Meal Organizers, cooks question of giving them so and helpers employed under the programme, be made Permanent Part-time
employee of the respective Local Bodies, viz., Panchayats, Panchayat Union Municipalities and the Municipal Corporations, as the case may be,
excluding employees of Integrated Child Development Services Centre.
Further, orders in regard to their terms and condition of service, disciplinary procedures and appointments will be issued separately. Pending
issue of further orders of Government on the matters, the existing orders on the subject issued by the Government from time to time should be
followed.
It is not the case of the learned Special Government Pleader that pursuant to the said Government Order, the Government has issued any order
regarding the terms and conditions of service and disciplinary procedure to be followed in the disciplinary proceedings. In any event, as correctly
submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader, as per the Government Order in existence as on date, the post of Noon Meal Organizer is
only part-time and is not governed by the Service Rules.
In such view of the matter, there is no difficulty to conclude that the order of the learned Judge, as if Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules is applicable, may not be correct. But that does not mean that the order passed by the second appellant, dismissing
the first respondent, could be validated, especially in the circumstances that, on the face of it, it is arbitrary, since not only no opportunity has been
given by the second appellant before passing such order of dismissal, but also the order proceeds on the basis of a report stated to have been
given by the Panchayat Union Commissioner, Pudupalayam, copy of which has not been, admittedly, furnished to the first respondent/delinquent
officer. Under such circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Special Government Order that, due to the reason of
reliance placed on Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the order of the learned Judge should be set aside.
For the reasons aforesaid, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. The writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
However, it is needless to state that it is always open to the appellants to proceed with the first respondent, if so advised, as against the charges
framed against him, afresh. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2007 is closed.