Writ petition challenging termination of service. Court held notice and hearing violated natural justice. Order quashed; respondent directed to reconsider afresh after enquiry.
Impugned termination order quashed. Respondent directed to reconvene and decide afresh after giving notice for enquiry.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No. 2528 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.2664 of 2022
M. Meganathan .. Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent relating to the order of the second respondent bearing No.Na.Ka.Pa.A4/304/2021 dated 24/12/2021 terminating the petitioner from service and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the second Respondent to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, full back wages and all consequent and attendant benefits.
For Petitioner :M/s.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan
For Respondents: Mr.A.M. Ayyadurai, GA
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd and 3rd respondents relating to the order of the 2nd respondent bearing No. Na. Ka. Pa. A4/304/2021 dated 24.12.2021 terminating the petitioner from service and quash the same in so far as the
petitioner is concerned and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, full back wages and all consequent and attendant benefits.
entitled for the benefit of the said Government Order or not, will be decided only by the authorities concerned, therefore, this Court will not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
case, this Court is inclined to pass the orders as follows:-
(ii) The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass final orders as expeditiously as possible, after providing opportunity to the petitioner by serving notice for the enquiry.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ak
To
2.The District Collector,
Tirupattur District, Tirupattur 635601
+2cc to Mr.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.25880 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.26159
W.P.No. 2528 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.2664 of 2022
BR(CO) SB(30/05/2022)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination of the petitioner from service without providing an opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice?
Whether the High Court should quash the termination order and direct a fresh inquiry with notice to the petitioner?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization benefits under the Government Order or if that merits must be decided by the authorities?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Meganathan
State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
District Collector, Tirupattur District
District Collector, Vellore District
D. Krishnakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
