V. Asokan vs The District Collector, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti Division and The Tahsildar

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order of termination passed against the petitioner on 01.06.2003

by the 3rd respondent.

The reason stated for passing the order of termination is that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case in Crime No. 82/2003 on the file of the

Usilampatti Town Police Station. In the said criminal case, the petitioner is accused No. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

criminal case is yet to be over and no final order is passed. The 3rd respodent based on the petitioner''s involvement in the criminal case, issued a

show cause notice and after getting his explanation, straight away passed the order of termination without conducting any enquiry and not even

framing charge memo for initiating disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that involvement of the petitioner in a

criminal case may be a ground for suspension but not for issuance of an order of termination. He also submitted that under such circumstances, a

charge memo has to be issued, explanation should be called for and if it is not satisfactory, enquiry shall be conducted and based on the enquiry

report only, final order can be passed, especially when the penalty of dismissal from service, the major penalty is imposed.

The learned counsel cited the Judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 660 (V.L. Lakshmanakumar v. The District Manager,

TASMAC Limited, Madurai District, Madurai) to support his contention. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that due to the

involvement in a criminal case, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and after the receipt of the explanation only the petitioner was

dismissed from service and there is no illegality in the order.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents. In the decision reported in 2006 (1) CTC 660 (V.L. Lakshmanakumar v. The District Manager, TASMAC Limited, Madurai

District, Madurai), this Court set aside the order of termination of temporary employees of TASMAC, following the Judgments of the Hon''ble

Supreme Court reported in Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satvendra Nath Bose National center for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Others, and State

of Haryana and Another Vs. Satyender Singh Rathore, and set aside the order of termination with a liberty to proceed with departmental action in

accordance with law. The said Judgment was followed by me in W.P.No.13209/2005 by order dated 14.03.2006.

In view of the said submissions, and admittedly, no enquiry being conducted, the impugned order of termination passed against the petitioner is

unsustainable and accordingly it is set aside. However, the petitioner having been involved in a criminal case and being accused No. 3 in Crime

No. 82/2003 on the file of Usilampatti Town Police Station, the petitioner shall be treated to be under suspension from 1.6.2003 till the criminal

case is over or the departmental proceedings is initiated and finalised. The petitioner shall be paid the subsistence allowance as admissible from

01.06.2003.

The writ petition is allowed with above direction. No costs.