JUDGMENT :- K. Chandru, J. Heard Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents and have perused the records. 2. The petitioner was working as a Noon Meal Organiser in the Middle School at Athiyur Thirukai coming under the second respondent Panchayat Union. On 17. 1994, in the Noon Meal Centre run under the care of the petitioner, due to food poisoning, 400 children attached to the centre had developed illness and they were rushed to the Government Hospital at Villupuram. Fortunately, due to immediate care and attention, the children were saved. In the said centre, apart from the petitioner being the organiser, there was also a cook and an assistant. Therefore, they were collectively responsible for running of the centre and the primary responsibility was role that of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for her negligence and was also suspended on 17. 1994. In the charge-memo given to her, it was clearly stated that she was responsible for the happenings in the centre. She was not only absent on that day but also failed to inform the second respondent about the incident. Though she claimed that she availed a days leave, she did not, as per the Rules, hand over the food materials to the Cook working in the centre. The petitioner, by her reply dated 28. 1994, did not deny the incident and also accepted her absence. She also stated that in future, she will abide by the guidelines. Pursuant to the reply given by her and also the direction issued by the Government, the services of the petitioner along with the two other persons in the centre, were terminated. 4. The petitioner filed a writ petition and she was not successful in getting any interim order. Even in the writ appeal being W.A. No. 73 of 1997, she was permitted by this Court vide order dated 03.02.1997 for withdrawing the writ petition itself with liberty to move the Tribunal. Accordingly, she filed the Original Application and the Tribunal, by its order dated 011. 2002, dismissed the O.A. after holding that the petitioners conduct in leaving the centre without proper handing over the charge, would amount to negligence and since she had contributed to the 400 children getting food poisoned, no mercy can be shown on the punishment meted out to her. 2002, dismissed the O.A. after holding that the petitioners conduct in leaving the centre without proper handing over the charge, would amount to negligence and since she had contributed to the 400 children getting food poisoned, no mercy can be shown on the punishment meted out to her. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his contentions: (a) Syam Sundar Misra v. The State of Orissa and another [AIR 1957 Orissa 222] (DB) (b) Ghulam Ahmad Bande and another v. Inspector-General of Police [AIR 1958 Jammu and Kashmir 28] (DB) (c) B. Uma v. The Superintending Engineer, MES and another [1990 Writ L.R. 495] (DB Madras) (d) The Chief Administrative Officer (Disciplinary Authority), Visvesvaraya Iron & Steel Ltd., Karnataka State and others v. V. Krishnamurthy [1991 Writ L.R. 658] (DB Madras) 6. It must be noted that none of the above four cases referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner will have any relevance to the case on hand. These cases related to either Government servants covered by Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution or related to employees of Statutory Boards covered by Regulations framed by the Statute. 7. In the present case, the post of Noon Meal Organiser was not a constituted service under any Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution and they were created by executive orders of the Government. The employees were recruited locally and were paid consolidated salary. Therefore, in the absence of the Rules, the only question that was to be considered was whether the minimum principles of natural justice were taken into account while imposing the punishment of removal from service. In the present case, show cause notice was issued and in the reply to the show cause notice, there was no denial of at least three out of four charges. 8. It is only against the charge of negligence, the petitioner contended that she was not present when the incident had taken place. When 400 children were rushed to the District Government Hospital (which is far away from the centre), one can imagine the plight of the panicked parents and the amount of vibrations that it might have created in their locality. When 400 children were rushed to the District Government Hospital (which is far away from the centre), one can imagine the plight of the panicked parents and the amount of vibrations that it might have created in their locality. Naturally, the Government was also concerned about the adverse publicity in the media which forced it to issue orders to the Commissioner to take stern action. 9. In the absence of any Rules framed in this regard and in the absence of any credible defence raised by the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the petitioner was not denied any reasonable opportunity of defending herself. The Tribunal was correct in holding that the petitioners conduct cannot be condoned. 10. Under the above circumstances, we do not feel persuaded to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.