Bala Krishnan R vs M.D., Tasmac Ltd. and Others

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner is an employee under the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation. The petitioner''s service was terminated

without any notice or enquiry. When similar writ petitions came up before this Court, this Court has allowed the writ petitions on the short ground

that there is no specific charges framed and also enquiry was not conducted. After following the decision of the Supreme Court, this Court set

aside the impugned Order and directed the Corporation to conduct enquiry strictly in terms of the order of appointment and pass final orders.

Paragraphs 6,7 and 8 of the judgment of, this Court reported in V.L. Lakshmanakumar Vs. The District Manager, ""TASMAC"" Limited and

Another, are extracted below at p. 686:

By the above reasoning the first respondent has found that the petitioner has committed certain misconduct and the impugned order is not an

order of termination simpliciter. Whether an order is an order of simple termination or would amount to stigma, thereby resulting in civil

consequences, is only to be determined considering the facts and circumstances of each case. A plain reading of the impugned order passed by the

first respondent makes it clear that it is not an order of termination simpliciter.

The Apex Court, in more than one case, has held that when an order of termination. involves civil consequences and consequently amounts to

stigma, the same cannot be passed without there being a charge memo, enquiry and the finding as to those charges. This proposition of law has

been recently reiterated by the Apex Court in the judgment State of Haryana and Another Vs. Satyender Singh Rathore, . In that judgment, the

Supreme Court has relied upon the earlier judgment Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satvendra Nath Bose National center for Basic Sciences,

Calcutta and Others, and has held that if findings were arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct behind the back of the officer or without a regular

departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as ""founded"" on the allegations and will be bad.

In view of the above pronouncement of the Apex Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the

writ petition is allowed. However, the order of this Court will not stand in the way of the respondents to initiate action against the petitioner strictly

in terms of the appointment order.

Similarly, batch of cases have been allowed by other learned Judges of this Court. As the impugned order is passed without following the minimum

principles of natural justice and the petitioner has not been given an opportunity, the impugned order is set aside and this writ petition is allowed.

The respondent is given liberty to proceed afresh in the matter, if they are so advised.

The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently. M.P. No. 1 of 2006 is closed.