Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.129266/91/N-5 dated 3. 1993 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Noon-Meal Organiser on 3. 1983 and was continuously employed in the said post. By proceeding dated 12. 1991 the petitioner was placed under suspension and a charge memo was issued to the petitioner by the third respondent on 12. 1992 containing nine charges. Petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation and on 22.21992 petitioner denied each and every charge. Second respondent without conducting enquiry in spite of the fact that the petitioner denied the charges, passed the order of dismissal of petitioner from service on 3. 1993. Petitioner preferred Appeal before the first respondent on 11. 1993 and no order having been passed, petitioner challenged the order of dismissal in O.A.No.2526 of 1995, which is transferred and numbered as the above Writ Petition. 3. The dismissal order is attacked on the ground that no enquiry was conducted before dismissal from service; that the statements said to have been given by the Aya, Cook, Deputy Inspector (Noon-meals), Cashier, Night Watchman and Office Assistant were rolled upon without furnishing copies of the same to the petitioner and not giving opportunity to cross-examine the said persons; that the petitioner was not even furnished copies of the Complaints said to have been received against him; and that, without serving copies of the Complaints, the explanation sought for from the petitioner itself is bad in law as the petitioner was not given a chance to give effective representation/explanation. On the said ground the impugned order is sought to be quashed. 4. Eventhough the respondents were served, no counter affidavit is filed either before the Tribunal or before this Court to controvert the averments made by the petitioner in his affidavit. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the basis of the averments contained in the affidavit submitted that serious charges are levelled against the petitioner and inspection reports were relied upon to frame the charges. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the basis of the averments contained in the affidavit submitted that serious charges are levelled against the petitioner and inspection reports were relied upon to frame the charges. Learned counsel also submitted that the principles of natural justice is thoroughly violated by the respondents not only while seeking explanation, but also by not conducting enquiry and relying upon the statements and reports, without giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the persons, who gave statements/reports. It is also contended that the impugned order having been passed on the basis of serious allegations, it causes serious stigma on the side of the petitioner and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner being a Noon-meal Organiser, the is no service rule framed and therefore explanation for the charges, was called and considering the explanation submitted, the impugned order of dismissal was passed and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the said order of dismissal. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 8. The point in issue is whether the dismissal order passed against the petitioner on the basis of serious allegations made against him, without conducting enquiry and without furnishing documents relied on for framing charges is valid in law and whether the petitioner is a civil servant entitled to get protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 9. The appointment of the petitioner as Noon-meal Organiser from 3. 1983 and his continuance in the said post till the order of dismissal, is not in dispute. The selection to the post of Noon-meal Organiser was made by the authorities of the State. The salary paid to the Noon-meal Organiser is also paid from the Government funds. The powers of appointment, transfer and posting of the Noon-meal Organisers are exercised by the Government Authorities. Even though the post of Noon-meal Organiser is not a regular post created under any statute, but created under the Government Orders, the post is permanent post and the scheme continues and subsequently all the persons appointed as Noon-meal Organisers were given time scale of pay and that the persons qualified for teaching post were given posting as teachers. The said facts are not in dispute. 10. The said facts are not in dispute. 10. The order of dismissal passed against the petitioner is not a termination simplicitor. Admittedly, petitioner was placed under suspension due to serious lapses and regular charge memo was issued to the petitioner, containing nine charges. The said charge memo was issued based on certain inspection reports and it Is the case of the petitioner that copies of the inspection reports were not enclosed along with the charge memo, enabling him to give a detailed reply to the charges. However, the petitioner admittedly denied each and every charge. 11. Once the charges are denied, the principles of natural justice requires conduct of enquiry. The statement given against the petitioner, though relied on for framing the charges as well as to dismiss the petitioner, admittedly no copy of the statements were given to the petitioner either at the time of seeking explanation or at any point of time. Petitioner was denied the opportunity of cross-examining the persons, who gave statements against him and therefore the principles of natural justice is not complied with by not furnishing copies of the statement and also by not conducting enquiry, so as to enable the petitioner to deny the charges by cross-examining the veracity of the statements. 12. The argument of the learned Additional Government Pleader that no enquiry need be conducted to dismiss the Noon-meal Organiser is principles of the natural Justice. 13. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported State of U.P. and others v. Cftandraka Prakash Pandey and others, 2001 (4) SCC 78 , considered similar issue as to the holder of civil post and in paragraph 10 held thus, "10. The question as to when a person can be said to be holder of a civil post has been the subject-matter of consideration before this Court on numerous occasions. In the case of State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta a Constitution Bench of this Court was considering a case where a Mauzadar was appointed for collection of land revenue under the Mauzadari system prevailing in the Assam Valley whose primary duty was to collect land revenue and other Government revenues. He was working as Revenue Officer and ex officio Assistant Settlement Officer exercising delegated powers of the Government and the State had the power and right to select and appoint him inasmuch as power to suspend and dismiss. He was working as Revenue Officer and ex officio Assistant Settlement Officer exercising delegated powers of the Government and the State had the power and right to select and appoint him inasmuch as power to suspend and dismiss. The Mauzadar was drawing not a regular salary but commission by way of a remuneration. The Court observed that there must be existence of relationship of master and servant between the State and its employees and such a relationship can be established by presence of all or some of the ingredients. After due consideration of the entire matter, the Court laid down the law as follows: (AIR pp.886. 87, paras 11-13) 11. Judged in this light, a Mauzadar in the Assam Valley is the holder of a civil post under the State. The State has the power and the right to select and appoint a Mauzadar and the power to suspend and dismiss him. He is a subordinate public servant working under the supervisior. and control of the Deputy Commissioner. He receives by way of remuneration a commission on his collections and sometimes a salary. There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and hint He holds an office on the revenue side of the administration to which specific and onerous duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached, an office which falls vacant on the death or removal of the incumbent and which is filled up by successive appointments. He is a responsible officer exercising delegated powers of Government Mauzadars in the Assam Valley are appointed Revenue Officers and of officio Assistant Settlement Officers. Originally, a Mauzadar may have been a revenue farmer and an independent contractor. But having regard to the existing system of his recruitment, employment and functions, he is a servant and a holder of a civil post under the State. 12. Counsel for the State stressed the fact that normally a Mauzadar does not draw a salary. But a post outside the regularly constituted services need not necessarily carry a definite rate of pay. The post of a Mauzadar carries with it a remuneration by way of a commission on collections of Government dues. Counsel stressed the fact that a Mauzadar is not a whole time employee. But a post outside the regularly constituted services may be a part-time employment. The post of a Mauzadar carries with it a remuneration by way of a commission on collections of Government dues. Counsel stressed the fact that a Mauzadar is not a whole time employee. But a post outside the regularly constituted services may be a part-time employment. The conditions of service of a Mauzadar enable him to engage in other activities. 13. In Verikata Swamy v. Supdt. of Post Offices, the Orissa High Court held, on a consideration of the relevant conditions of employment, that a temporary Extradepartmental Branch Postmaster was not a person holding a civil post, but the observation in that case that a part-time employee cannot be the holder of a civil post outside the regularly constituted services is too wide and cannot he supported." 14. Applying the above principles, laid down in the above cited decision and various other judgments relied on in the said judgment, to the facts of this case and having regard to the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Noon-meal Organiser in terms of the Government Order issued and the posting and transfer orders of the posts having been issued by the officials of the State and the salary of the petitioner having been paid from the State funds allocated under the budget allocation, I am of the firm view that the Noon-meal Organiser post is a civil post and therefore Noon-meal Organiser is entitled to have protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. which clearly states that no person, who is a member of a civil service of the Union or a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that no service rule is applicable insofar as the Noon-meal Organiser posts and their services can be terminated without following the due process of law is unsustainable in view of the fact that Noon-meal Organiser post is a substantive post. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that no service rule is applicable insofar as the Noon-meal Organiser posts and their services can be terminated without following the due process of law is unsustainable in view of the fact that Noon-meal Organiser post is a substantive post. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in Ramesh K Sharma & Another v. Rajasthan Civil Services & Others, 2000 (7) Supreme 622 : 2001 (I) SCC 637 in paragraph 6 held that if no service rule is framed in respect of any particular service personnel and the persons are appointed based on any Executive Order, still the said persons will hold the substantive posts. The relevant portion of para 6 of the Judgment reads thus: "According to the learned counsel since there were no relevant Service Rules for recruitment to the post under the Land and Building Tax Department it has to be assumed that such appointment has been made without any selection and, as such the appointment would attract the expression "ad hoc" in Rule 3(a) of the Absorption Rules. We are not persuaded to accept this contention inasmuch as the expression "service An rule" does not necessarily mean rules framed by the Governor in Or exercise of power under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. It is well settled that the service condition including the mode of recruitment to a service could be determined by a set of administrative tern order in the absence of any statutory rule operative in the field. This pas: being the position, and when the very advertisement for filling up of the post in the Land and Building Tax Department is examined it would be verb apparent that the said advertisement indicated minimum educational qualification, the age of the applicant, the number of vacancies and the mode of recruitment. It was further stipulated that the selection of the candidates will be by the written lest in General Knowledge, General English, General Hindi and thereafter the interview. In the aforesaid rule clear enunciation of the mode of recruitment to the post by the competent executive authority, the contention of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan law that the appointments of the private respondents had been made without are is any selection cannot be accepted. Dr. In the aforesaid rule clear enunciation of the mode of recruitment to the post by the competent executive authority, the contention of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan law that the appointments of the private respondents had been made without are is any selection cannot be accepted. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan alternatively the al argued that the second part of the definition in Rule 3(a) would also be their applicable to the case in hand inasmuch as though the temporary appointment of the private respondents to the Land and Building Tax Department had been made by the order of the Government for which i there were no service rules and as such, the appointment cannot (sic taken but) be ad hoc. This submission also cannot be accepted on a true interpretation of the second part of Rule 3(a). To attract the second pat the conditions to be fulfilled are: (1) there does not exist any service rule for the appointment, (2) the appointment is made under the orders will bi of the Government, and (3) such appointment is made otherwise than on the recommendation of the Commission if the post comes within the purview of the Commission. It is nobody’s case that the posts created under the special scheme to which the private respondents had beet served recruited in the Land and Building Tax Department do come within the purview of the Service Commission. In such a case if there are no service rules appointment is made by an order of the Government to the post of the Absorption Rules. But as we have already stated, the expression "Service Rule" cannot be given a restrictive meaning in the absence a. the definition of the said term and, _therefore, it would include within it sweep the necessary Government Order providing the method of recruitment. In the case in hand, in view of our conclusion, the and all Government Order did prescribe the method of recruitment, so it would be difficult for us to hold that there was no rule existing providing the mode of recruitment. Consequently even the second part of the definition of "ad hoc appointment" contained in Rule 3(a) of the Absorption Rules to have no Application. The contention of Dr. Consequently even the second part of the definition of "ad hoc appointment" contained in Rule 3(a) of the Absorption Rules to have no Application. The contention of Dr. Dhavan therefore, cannot be sustained." Here in this case, the post of Noon-meal Organiser was created under the Government Order, which was issued in exercise of powers conferred under Article 162 of Constitution of India. Hence I hold that the Noon-meal Organiser post is a substantive post under the Tamil Nadu Government. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners service was terminated due to misconduct. Therefore admittedly the termination order passed against the petitioner is not a termination simplicitor, but attached with stigma. Petitioners service having been terminated, his civil rights are very much affected and the principles of natural justice requires that his services should be terminated only after following the due process of law viz., the basis under which the charges were framed, the statements or the representations received against the petitioner to frame the charges and the petitioner having denied the charges, It is incumbent on the part of the respondents to conduct enquiry and prove the charges in a manner known to law and conduct of enquiry is all the more necessary when the allegations are such as not maintaining proper accounts; deficiency in stock: not closing the attendance register, not permitting the other staff members to discharge their duties; and threatening the night-watchman while they allegedly attempted to paste the notice in the notice board, among other things. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident has taken place in the year 1991 and more than 15 years have passed and therefore there is no purpose in permitting the respondents to conduct part enquiry In the charges by remanding the matter, and if enquiry is ordered he will be prejudiced. The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 4. 2007 to the effect that if he is reinstated with continuity of service and other attendant benefits, he is willing to forego the claim of backwages. The said contention to also bound to be accepted in view of lapse of time as no purpose will he served by permitting the respondents to conduct enquiry to go into the allegation said to have taken place in the year 1991. The said contention to also bound to be accepted in view of lapse of time as no purpose will he served by permitting the respondents to conduct enquiry to go into the allegation said to have taken place in the year 1991. The reason is, the no officials will not be available now and the petitioner also will not be in a the position to remember the facts, which happened 15 years ago. 17. Therefore, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned order with a direction to the respondents to its reinstate the petitioner as Noon-meal Organiser with continuity of service and all attendant benefits other than backwages. The respondents are directed to implement this order within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Writ Petition is ordered with the above direction. No costs.