The President, v. M.Dhanam,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.11.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU W.A(MD)No.358 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 The President, Thirukalambure Village Panchayat, Ponamaravathi Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai District.

... Appellant/3rd Respondent Vs.

1.M.Dhanam W/o Murugaiyha, Over Head Tank Operator (Removed), Thirukalambure Village Panchayat, Ponamaravathi Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai District.

... 1st Respondents/Petitioner 2.The District Collector, Pudukottai District.

3.The Block Development Officer, Ponamaravathi Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai District.

.. 2nd & 3rd Respondents/1st & 2nd Respondents PRAYER: The Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent Act praying to set aside the order dated 24.04.2012 in W.P.No.2399 of 2012.

Prayer in WP(MD). 2399/ 2012 :

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 3rd respondent in ref. Na.Ka.No. 3/2011-2012, dated 02.01.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent herein to permit the petitioner to do work as Over Head Tank Operator at Karuchathankulam.

For Appellant :Mr.AL.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan for R.1

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.) The first respondent/writ petitioner had joined as Over Head Tank Operator in the appellant/local body on 01.04.2002 and she was paid with monthly salary of Rs.970/- per month, after deducting amount of Rs.30/-p.m for Group Insurance Scheme and according to her, she had put in more than 10 years of continuous service and however, to her shock and surprise, the local body, vide impugned order, dated 02.01.2012, has terminated her service on the ground that in violation of Government instructions / Rules, she has been appointed as Over Head Tank Operator and challenging the order of the local body, she has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.2399 of 2012.

2. The learned Judge, after taking into consideration the materials placed before the Court, has found that before terminating the service of the first respondent / writ petitioner, she has not been afforded with any opportunity whatsoever and therefore, on the short ground, has set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the third respondent/local body for adopting / following due process of law and challenging the legality of the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant/local body.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/third respondent in the writ petition, would vehemently contend that since the appointment of the first respondent/writ petitioner as Over Head Tank Operator is in violation of the relevant norms and rules and the said fact is also pointed out by the Local Fund Audit, she has been rightly terminated and prays for interference.

4. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner would submit that admittedly the first respondent/writ petitioner had put in more than 10 years of continuous service and without affording any opportunity whatsoever, all of a sudden, she has been terminated from service and the learned Judge, after taking note of all the factual aspects and legal position, has rightly set aside the order and remanded the matter to the local body for fresh consideration and it cannot be faulted with and hence, prays for dismissal.

5. This Court paid it's best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. It is a categorical stand of the first respondent/writ petitioner that she was appointed as Over Head Tank Operator as early as on 01.04.2002 and put in more than 10 years of continuous service. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the

appellant/third respondent dated 02.01.2012 would indicate that without putting the first respondent/writ petitioner on notice and without affording her any opportunity whatsoever, all of a sudden, he has issued the termination order. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said order is per se violation of principles of natural justice and the said fact has been rightly taken note of by the learned Judge and vide the impugned order, has set aside the same and also granted liberty to the appellant/third respondent in the writ petition, to follow the due process of law before doing so. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons assigned the learned Single Judge cannot be found faulted with and there is no infirmity or error apparent on the impugned order and therefore, the Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed in W.P(MD)No.2399 of 2012, dated 24.04.2012. However considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar ssl To 1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District.

2.The Block Development Officer, Ponamaravathi Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai District.

GJM/KM/25.11.16-3p-3C W.A(MD)No.358 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 08.11.2016