Judgment : The petitioner who worked as a sweeper in Town Panchayat P.Mettupalayam has moved this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the first respondent herein and the order terminating the petitioner’s services with effect from 3. 1985. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a sweeper in the Town Panchayat in the year 1971 and served in the said capacity doing, besides his normal duty, the duty in the pump room. He has alleged, however, that in September/October 1985, the then Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat/ 3rd respondent P.Gurunathan and the Town Panchayat Clerk/4th respondent M.N.Arumugham turned hostile to him, for he protested to their illegally appropriating money in the name of replacement of coil of the motor in the pump room and cost of repair. A complaint, according to the petitioner, was made by someone to the Higher authorities about their conduct: they (P.Gurunathan and M.N.Arumugham), however, thought that the petitioner was respoiisible for the complaint and started harassing him. The petitioner has alleged, "They refused to pay my salary for December, 1984, January, 1985 and February, 1985 without any reason on the plea that there are no funds in the panchayat. The other staffs were however paid regularly. The petitioner was asked, according to him, to come for the evening duty on 22. 1985. The then Executive Officer Gurunathan and the clerk Arumugham also came to the office in the late evening at about 9.00 p.m., on the pretext of doing some urgent work. They asked someone to bring meals to the office. They took the meals in the office itself and asked the petitioner to clean the place. When the petitioner entered the Executive Officer’s room, Arumugham caught hold of the petitioner and began to beat him with chappals saying that he (petitioner) had leaked out the news of their taking money to the public. Gurunathan also joined Arumugham in beating the petitioner. The petitioner cried for help and one Muthu and some others arrived and saved him (petitioner) from the assault by Gurunathan and Arumugham. The petitioner has alleged, since it happened during night and there was no bus facilities I stayed in the verandah itself. All my clothes were damaged due to the blood injuries. When others interfered, the Executive Officer and the clerk left the place by about 45. The petitioner has alleged, since it happened during night and there was no bus facilities I stayed in the verandah itself. All my clothes were damaged due to the blood injuries. When others interfered, the Executive Officer and the clerk left the place by about 45. p.m. The next day, i.e., on 3. 1985 my wife came to know about the brutal attack on me and she came to the office and with her help I was taken to the police station on 3. 1985. I gave apolice complaint on 3. 1985 to the police. The police after recording my statement sent me to the hospital for treatment. I was admitted as an inpatient in Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam. The hospital, however, wanted a N.G.O. Certificate so that the petitioner could be provided medicines free of cost and accordingly a request was made on behalf of the petitioner to the then Executive Officer (P.Gurunathan). The Executive Officer, however, refused to issue any such certificate. As a result of the same, the petitioner was required to pay the hospital charges, the money for which he could raise only by disposing of the sundry household items. Since the N.G.O. Certificate was not issued, the hospital discharged the petitioner after issuing an outpatient slip for treatment and the petitioner came home. But since he was still suffering from injuries, he applied for leave and sought extension thereof. The then Executive Officer (P.Gurunathan) instead of sanctioning the leave, referred the same to the District Medical Officer, Periyar District. The petitioner was asked to appear before the District Medical Officer at Erode on 23. 1985. The District Medical Officer, however, opined that the petitioner would be fit to attend his duty with effect from 4. 1985. On 4. 1985 the petitioner appeared with the Fitness Certificate before the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer orally informed him that he was under suspension and he could not be permitted to join duty. The petitioner has further alleged that on23. 1985 some peon of the Panchayat had come to his house and attempted to paste some notice. The petitioner accordingly addressed a letter to the first respondent, viz., the then Executive Officer, requesting for a copy of the alleged notice. However, on 14. The petitioner has further alleged that on23. 1985 some peon of the Panchayat had come to his house and attempted to paste some notice. The petitioner accordingly addressed a letter to the first respondent, viz., the then Executive Officer, requesting for a copy of the alleged notice. However, on 14. 1985 one Mr.Pattan, a resident of premises No.32 of Maduraiveeran Colony, gave to the petitioner a copy of the notice said to have been affixed at his door, purported to be a notice calling for explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner came to know from the contents of the said notice that the then Executive Officer had reached a prima facie conclusion that the petitioner was not working properly for five years and that in the night on 22. 1985 when he had reported to duty he was drunk. The petitioner immediately replied to the said notice, but the first respondent, the then Executive Officer, issued the order dated 14. 1985 terminating the services of the petitioner with retrospective effect from 3. 1985. Impleading the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat and the District Collector of Periyar District as Party respondents, the petitioner moved the instant petition. Before, however, the final hearing when it transpired that the then Executive Officer (P.Gurunathan) and the clerk (M.N.Arumugham), who were concerned, according to the petitioner, with the incidents aforementioned, were not impleaded as party respondents, the court ordered to add them as respondents herein. They have since been added as party- respondents, served with notices and entered appearance. .3. The then Executive Officer, P.Gurunathan in his counter has stated that he was transferred from P.Mettupalayam Town Panchayat to Vengamoor Town Panchayat as Executive Officer in the month of May, 1985 itself. He has denied the allegation that he was involved in any money transaction for the replacement and repair of the motor in the pump house and the other allegations levelled against him. He has however stated that the non-payment of salary to the petitioner for December, 1984 January and February 1985, was due to non-availability of funds in the panchayat union at that time. (The salary was later paid to the petitioner after the removal from services). He has accepted that there has been some incident in his office in the late evening of 22. (The salary was later paid to the petitioner after the removal from services). He has accepted that there has been some incident in his office in the late evening of 22. 1985 and that the petitioner had filed a police complaint and later a private complaint before a Magistrate, but stated that he was not involved in any attack upon the petitioner at all and that, “at that time myself and Mr.Arumugham the 4th respondent herein were preparing monthly periodical report to be submitted to the Collector. The petitioner began abusing us in bad language since some leave was not sanctioned by me. In the moment I came to know that he was in a drunken mood and tried to pacify him and he went out of the office. About the non-issue of N.G.O. Certificate, this respondent has said:” The alleged non-issue of N.G.O. Certificate was not intentional, but, in fact the petitioner was asked to apply through the Medical Officer for the certificate since the petitioner had not disclosed any evidence to show that he was taking medical treatment and it is only for such purpose he was required the said N.G.O. Certificate, “He has, however, disputed the petitioner’s allegation that he came to the office with the Physical Fitness Certificate on 4. 1985 or thereafter, or that he orally informed the petitioner that he was under suspension. According to him,” In fact that for the misconduct of the petitioner on 22. 1985 he was suspended from 3. 1985 by my proceedings dated 22. 1985 in Na.Ka. No.200/85/ A and charges were framed against him and both on 3. 1985 and 3. 1985 they were sent by registered post to the residence of the petitioner and they were returned respectively on 13. 1985 and 23. 1985 as the addressee was not available. Hence they were affixed on the door of the petitioner by one M.K.KuIandaisamy, Attender, and Ammasai, Sanitary worker, since the door was locked. Thereafter when there was no reply to the charge memo by the petitioner, he was dismissed from service by impugned order dated 14. 1985." This respondent has pleaded that the petitioner was misbehaving with him and the 4th respondent (M.N.Arumugham) and gave a false complaint against them before the police only at the behest of one Mr.M.A. Subramaniam, Sanitary Maistry, in the office of the Panchayat Union. .4. The 4th respondent, viz.. 1985." This respondent has pleaded that the petitioner was misbehaving with him and the 4th respondent (M.N.Arumugham) and gave a false complaint against them before the police only at the behest of one Mr.M.A. Subramaniam, Sanitary Maistry, in the office of the Panchayat Union. .4. The 4th respondent, viz.. the Clerk M.N. Arumugham has stated that he was transferred from P.Mettupalayam Town panchayat to P.P.Agraharam Town Panchayat in Erode in the month of June, 1985. He has denied the allegation that he joined hands with the then Executive Officer, P.Gurunathan, in the matter of repair of motor in October, 1984 or at any point of time, or that certain events happened as described by the petitioner. He has stated that at about 9.00 p.m. on 22. 1985, the petitioner came to the office in a drunken mood for the night duty. He (M.N.Arumugham) was engaged in the preparation of monthly periodical report to be submitted to the Collector along with the then Executive Officer (P.Gurunathan). The petitioner began abusing them in bad language, since some leave was not sanctioned by the Executive Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner went out of the office. Only later he came to know that the petitioner had given a criminal complaint to the police against him and P.Gurunathan that he had been attacked by them and received injuries. He has denied any knowledge of the non-issue of N.G.O. Certificate to the petitioner or any happenings on 4. 1985 or thereafter, except that he had knowledge that the petitioner was suspended and later dismissed for his misconduct by the then Executive Officer. 5. The petitioner did file a complaint with the police that he was assaulted by the then Executive Officer, P.Gurunathan, and the clerk, M.N.Arumugham. The police, it seems, reported the case as one of mistake of fact. The petitioner filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, in respect of the said allegations, The Magistrate dismissed the complaint. He preferred a revision before the District Judge, Erode. The District Judge dismissed the revision petition. Notice of the proceeding under which he was allegedly put under suspension and finally removed from service, was served upon him, if at all by affixture at the door of his house, either on 23. 1985 or thereafter. The petitioner had given a police complaint against the then Executive Officer (P.Gurunathan) and the clerk of the Panchayat (M.N.Arumugham) on 3. Notice of the proceeding under which he was allegedly put under suspension and finally removed from service, was served upon him, if at all by affixture at the door of his house, either on 23. 1985 or thereafter. The petitioner had given a police complaint against the then Executive Officer (P.Gurunathan) and the clerk of the Panchayat (M.N.Arumugham) on 3. 1985 and the charge memo, according to the respondents, was issued only on 13. 1985. .6. The District Collector and the successor Executive Officer have not filed any return. It is not in dispute before me that Panchayat Union is a ‘State’ under Art.12 of the Constitution of India. Action that finally terminated the petitioner’s contract of service was required to be taken in accordance with such rules and/or conditions of the contract of service, which applied to the employees of the Panchayat Union and in the absence of any rules or any specific conditions of service in this behalf, strictly in accordance with principles of natural justice so that the petitioner’s status as an employee of the State was disturbed strictly in accordance with the rules, which conformed with the requirements of Art.16(1) of the Constitution read with Art.14 thereof. For an employee and that too an employee at the lowest stage of a service under the State, emoluments in lieu of service alone provide means for bread and it is well settled by now that any interference with the services of an employee constitutes interference with his life and, as provided under Art.21 of the Constitution of India, such interference is permissible only in accordance with the prescribed procedure of law. What the respondents have done to the petitioner, however, is something that does not appear to satisfy the requirements of equality of opportunity of employment or equal protection of law or equality before law, as enshrined under Art.16(1) of the Constitution of India and Art.14 thereof, and the respondents have given no care to the legal prescriptions in interfering with the petitioner’s services and thus have not complied with the requirements of Art.21 of the Constitution. The reason for my coming to the above conclusion is not far to think. 7. According to the then Executive Officer, P.Gurunathan, the petitioner was suspended (vide order dated 22. The reason for my coming to the above conclusion is not far to think. 7. According to the then Executive Officer, P.Gurunathan, the petitioner was suspended (vide order dated 22. 1985) and after charges were framed against the petitioner the suspension order and the memo of charges were sent by registered post to the residence of the petitioner on 3. 1985 and 3. 1985 respectively. The post, however, returned unserved, the memo of charges on 23. 1985 as the addressee was not available. He has stated, ‘hence they were affixed on the door of the petitioner by one M.K.Kulandaisamy attender and Ammasai, Sanitary Worker, since the door is locked, but has not disclosed the date on which the service was effected by affixture of the notice at the door of the petitioner’s house. The petitioner has alleged that he learnt on 23. 1985 that someone from the panchayat had come and attempted to paste some notice at the door of his house and accordingly requested the Executive Officer for a copy of the said notice. He got information about the notice only on 14. 1985 from one Mr.Pattan.a resident of premises No.32, Madurai Veeran Colony. If the period of 14 days notice, it is said the notice is contemplated to show cause if any, by the petitioner within a fortnight, is reckoned from 23. 1985, the termination order, which was issued just on the 17th/ 18th day, if it is calculated from 14. 1985, i.e. the date when the petitioner came to know about the notice, was made within four days of the service of the notice upon the petitioner. In any case, once the petitioner had sent his explanation to the said notice and denied the allegations and the same was received in the office of the then Executive Officer on 14. 1985, the then Executive Officer was not expected to issue any order on the said date without looking into the explanation of the petitioner. I am not intending in the instant case to accept as true the petitioner’s allegation against the then Executive Officer (P.Gurunathan) and the then clerk (M.N.Arumugham) of the Panchayat Union, but the fact remains that the petitioner filed a police complaint against them on 3. 1985 and followed it by a private complaint before the court of a Magistrate. Some incident had taken place in the late evening on 22. 1985 and followed it by a private complaint before the court of a Magistrate. Some incident had taken place in the late evening on 22. 1985 in the office of the then Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, P.Mettupalayam. which warranted some action against the petitioner. But the then Executive Officer issued memo to the petitioner for the first time after 3. 1985 that is after the petitioner’s complaint to the police against the then Executive Officer and the clerk of the Panchayat Union. It is difficult to deny for anybody, in a situation as above, that the then executive officer acted unprovoked and without being in any manner angry with the petitioner. The petitioner had, however, reason to feel harassed that his salary for the months of December, 1984 and January and February, 1985 had not been paid, although it is stated in the counter filed on behalf of the third respondent, viz., P.Gurunathan, that no one belonging to the service of the petitioner was paid any salary during the said three months, to a pointed question at the Bar, learned counsel for the third respondent has conceded that the then Executive Officer (P.Gurunathan) and the clerk (M.N.Arumugham) regularly received salary. Even if no credit is given to the petitioner’s allegation that P.Gurunathan and M.N.Arumugham were involved in any illegal gratification or misappropriation of the Panchayat Union funds and that they were angry because they felt that the petitioner was the man behind the complaint against them, it is not possible to deny that in the evening of 22. 1985 the then Executive Officer (P.Gurunathan) and the clerk (M.N.Arumugham) were involved in some incident and even if their version that they were victims of the abuses by the petitioner is accepted, it were they, who were thus witnesses of the incident. It is quite possible that when P.Gurunathan decided to take action against the petitioner he was not in a position to act without malice, which in its legal sense means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally, but without just cause or excuse or for want of reasonable or probable cause. It is quite possible that when P.Gurunathan decided to take action against the petitioner he was not in a position to act without malice, which in its legal sense means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally, but without just cause or excuse or for want of reasonable or probable cause. It is not necessary in cases of this kind that there should be actual malice controlling the mind of the doer; it is enough if it is found that he had reasons to be acting under extraneous influence than to deal strictly in accordance with law with someone, who had committed a wrong. Any action, which is found based on collateral ground, any action, which is found afflicted by malice, either in law or in fact, any action which is taken under some mistaken belief in the existence of a non-existing fact or circumstance, any action,.which is so clearly unreasonable that it may be taken to have been done in bad faith is unreasonable and against all norms of law. In S.R.Venkataraman v. Union of India. A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 49 law in this behalf has been candidly stated and it is pointed out that a person, who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of law, is not allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind. He may be guilty of malice in law, although so far as the state of his mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly and in that sense innocently. It is one case in my opinion in which without going into any investigation of any existence of malice in the mind of the then Executive officer, P.Gurunathan, it should be assumed that he intended to punish the petitioner and in that the forgot that he was required in such a situation to act reasonably andstrictly in accordance with law. To add in the words of the Supreme Court it is trite law that if a discretionary power has been exercised for an unauthorized purpose, it is generally immaterial whether its repository was acting in good faith or in bad faith. The Executive Officer (P.Gurunathan) almost decided his own cause when he sent the petitioner unemployed for the alleged incident on 22. 1985 which cause also formed one of the charges against the petitioner. The Executive Officer (P.Gurunathan) almost decided his own cause when he sent the petitioner unemployed for the alleged incident on 22. 1985 which cause also formed one of the charges against the petitioner. It is indeed a case in which two basic principles of natural justice are violated; viz. (1) the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity of being heard, before the punishment was imposed upon him; and (2) the then Executive Officer (P.Gurunathan) judged a cause in which he had his own interest, that is, interest of a victim of the alleged abuses by the petitioner or, that of a witness of the incident which formed one of the charges against the petitioner. His order terminating the petitioner’s service is also inflicted by malice in law for the above reasons and is in the teeth of Art.16(1) read with Art.14 of the Constitution. The respondents have shown little respect to the conditions of service of the petitioner which are protected under Art.21 of the Constitution, and have thus violated such fundamental rights of the petitioner that this Court is duty bound to protect. 8. A fourth grade employee in a Panchayat Union Service has suffered on account of patent violations of his Constitutional rights by the employer and also because his petition before this court remained pending for long. There is no information whether the petitioner has been in any alternative gainful employment. It is a case, in my opinion, in which as a consequence of the invalidity of the impugned order, the petitioner should be reinstated in service with backwages on condition that he must file an affidavit before the present Executive Officer, Town Panchayat P.Mettupalayam that he has not been gainfully employed during the period from the date of removal from service upto the date of joining in service. It shall be open to the Executive Officer to verify whether the petitioner had been gainfully employed during the. relevant period. In the result this petition is allowed. The order in Na.Ka. 200 of 1985 AI, dated 14. 1985 is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits and pay to him all the backwages accordingly, subject to the petitioner filing an affidavit that he had not been employed gainfully anywhere else during such period and verification thereof by the first respondent, Executive Officer, as observed above. 1985 is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits and pay to him all the backwages accordingly, subject to the petitioner filing an affidavit that he had not been employed gainfully anywhere else during such period and verification thereof by the first respondent, Executive Officer, as observed above. The respondents shall be liable to pay costs. Hearing fee Rs.500 only.