S.Satheeshkumar, v. The Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.03.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P. (MD) No.4686 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.4747 & 4748 of 2018 S.Satheeshkumar .. Petitioner Vs.
1. The Commissioner, Office of the Welfare of the Differently Abled, Chennai - 78.
2. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3. The District Welfare Officer of the Differently Abled, Office of the Welfare of the Differently Abled, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
.. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1031/A/2014 dated 06.02.2018 passed by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the second and third respondents to reinstate the petitioner on service with all attendant and monetary benefits. For petitioner : Mr.PR.Boomeerajan For respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathi Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
Mrs.S.Srimathi, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.
2.By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 3.The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on temporary basis in the office of the third respondent by order dated 26.11.2015. He has been permanently relieved from service by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
order dated 06.02.2018. Questioning the same, this writ petition has been filed.
4.When notice was issued to the respondents, it was submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is blameworthy and that therefore, he was relieved from his post. Though the petitioner was appointed only on temporary basis, he cannot be summarily removed from service. The impugned order is having a punitive effect on the petitioner's right and carrier. The impugned order reads that the petitioner was permanently relieved from the said post.
This will certainly have a civil consequences. Therefore, the third respondent should have issued a show cause notice and only after complying with the principles of natural justice, taken action against the petitioner. 5.In this case, such an approach has not been adopted. Therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition is quashed. The third respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and liberty is of course given to the third respondent to take disciplinary action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
6.With this liberty, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:
1. The Commissioner, Office of the Welfare of the Differently Abled, Chennai - 78.
2. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3. The District Welfare Officer of the Differently Abled, Office of the Welfare of the Differently Abled, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
+1. CC to Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 53313 +1. CC to M/S.Mr.PR.Boomee Rajan Advocate SR.No.53159 ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.4686 of 2018 06.03.2018 tsg MKV-PM-PN-SAR 2/8.3.2018/2P-6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/