Judgment :- 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.8299 of 1997, challenging the order, dated 8. 97, wherein by which he was permanently removed from the post of Noon Meal Organizer at the noon meal center in Vizhandai Colony, Mugaiyur Panchayat Union. 2. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated 97. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.37873 of 2006. 3. On certain complaints being received from the village of Vizhandai Colony, an inspection was made by the Tahsildar, Thirukoilur. On the basis of the report given by the Tahsildar, the petitioner was placed under suspension, by an order dated 20.96. A charge memo, dated 3. 97 was framed against the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner was not feeding the children during weekends on Saturdays and Sundays. When Tahsildar visited the center, there were only 10 children present, whereas the account was shown as if food was prepared for 70 persons. He was also not present at the Center on 18. 96 when the Tahsildar inspected the premises. Further, the village people had complained that for more than one year, the children were not fed during the weekends. Though the petitioner denied the charges, the respondent, District Collector, by the impugned order dispensed with the service, which was communicated by the second respondent. 4. The petitioner contended that no opportunity was given before dispensing with the service. He was also not supplied with the documents in possession of the respondents. In response to the allegation made by the petitioner, in para 3 of the reply affidavit, the following averments have been made: "3. ... Therefore based on the complaint of the Villagers and report of the Tahsildar, Tirukoilur (copy enclosed) the organiser Thiru.Subramanian was suspended on 30.96. Necessary charges were framed on 3. 97 giving him sufficient time to submit his statement of defence for the illicities committed. The explanation received from him on 23. 97 was not at all convincing and he was terminated as per Collector Proceedings No.PE 4/8199/97, dated 8. 97 due to the factors that noon meal staff are not coming under regular state service rule of the general subordinates and service rules are not framed for their service. The noon meal staff are coming under non standard time scale only. 97 was not at all convincing and he was terminated as per Collector Proceedings No.PE 4/8199/97, dated 8. 97 due to the factors that noon meal staff are not coming under regular state service rule of the general subordinates and service rules are not framed for their service. The noon meal staff are coming under non standard time scale only. Therefore there is no alternate except dismiss and this punishment is not a major one as express in para 6 since the service are temporary only and not being regularised a declaration of Probation done and liable to be ousted without any notice at any time. ... Regarding It is submitted the order of termination issued only on public complaints and actual spot inspection of the Tahsildar, Tirukoilur. The order of termination was issued by the competent authority i.e. Collector who is the appointing authority for the temporary post for which service rules are not framed, so far. Hence the Order." 5. Therefore, it is an admitted case that the respondents have not even observed minimum principles of natural justice before dispensing with the service of the petitioner. As to what constitutes the minimum principles of natural justice in conducting a domestic enquiry came to be laid down by the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen reported in AIR 1963 SC 1719 . The following passage found in para 4 of the said judgment may be usefully extracted below: "4. ... It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted. A departure from this requirement in effect throws the burden upon the person charged to repel the charge without first making it out against him. In the present case neither was any witness examined nor was any statement made by any witness tendered in evidence. A departure from this requirement in effect throws the burden upon the person charged to repel the charge without first making it out against him. In the present case neither was any witness examined nor was any statement made by any witness tendered in evidence. The enquiry, such as it was, made by Mr Marshall or Mr Nichols who were not only in the position of judges but also of prosecutors and witnesses. There was no opportunity to the persons charged to cross-examine them and indeed they drew upon their own knowledge of the incident and instead cross-examined the persons charged. This was such a travesty of the principles of natural justice that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the findings and asking the Company to prove the allegation against each workman de novo before it." 6. In the light of the above facts and the legal precedent, the writ petition will stand allowed and the impugned order of the respondents will stand set aside. However, it will be open to the respondents to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law and decide the matter one way or the other. However, there will be no order as to costs.