Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. Heard the arguments of Mr. G. Pugazhenthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader representing second respondent and have perused the records. 2. The petitioner was working as a Noon Meal Organiser in the Panchayat Union Primary School, Jayakondam, Perambalur District in the year 1984. On 19. 1998, he was given a charge-memo alleging serious irregularities in his conduct of not maintaining records for the centre for the year 1993-94 to 1996-97. It was further stated that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,89,020 but did not submit any records for inspection by the audit staff. He had not followed the instructions issued by the Department in the discharge of his duties. He also had sent a petition to the higher authorities on 07. 1998 asking them to give police protection for the purpose of selling in the open ration and other articles kept in the noon meal centre. 3. He sent an explanation dated 27. 1998. On the petitioner moving the Tribunal with O.A. No. 6905 of 1999 and getting an interim order dated 111. 1999, his suspension was revoked and he was restored to duty. By the order dated 17. 2002, the first respondent District Collector held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and on a careful consideration of the explanation of the petitioner, removed him from service. 4. The Tribunal, on a detailed examination of the issue, held that the petitioner himself had admitted several charges and since the lapses have been admitted by him, there was no necessity to hold an elaborate enquiry. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. by holding that there was no question of showing mercy to the petitioner and accordingly, dismissed the O.A. 5. Mr. G. Pughazhenthi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no enquiry was held against the petitioner and, therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in upholding the order of the respondent. 6. It must be stated that the post of noon meal organizer did not belong to any constituted service under Article 309 of the Constitution. It was created by the executive orders of the Government and only a consolidated pay is paid by the State. The service conditions of the employees working under the noon meal centres are governed by executive instructions. It was created by the executive orders of the Government and only a consolidated pay is paid by the State. The service conditions of the employees working under the noon meal centres are governed by executive instructions. It is, no doubt, true that in order to dispense with the services of an employee, principles of natural justice will have to be followed. But in the present case, the petitioner has not disputed the charges levelled against him with reference to not providing accounts for the expenditure involved and not adhering to the instructions issued. May be the charge that he sought for police protection for selling the commodities stored in the centre in open was an act of gimmick but the other charges are serious for which no worthwhile explanation was forthcoming from his side. The Tribunal also correctly held that for the admitted charges, there need not be any enquiry. 7. We do not think that there is any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.