Judgment :- The Original Application in O.A.No.1005 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was working as a part-time Panchayat Assistant from 30.12.1996. While so, a charge memo dated 212. 2001 was issued to him making certain allegations. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 02.01.2002, denying the allegations. While so, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 04.02.2002, dismissing him from service. 3. The petitioner filed an Original Application in O.A.No.1005 of 2002 (W.P.No.8382 of 2007) to quash the aforesaid order dated 04.02.2002 and to direct the respondents to reinstate him in service with all monetary and service benefits. 4. Heard Mr.R. Singaaravelan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mrs.C.K. Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2; and Mr.V. Subbiah, learned counsel for the third respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, as no enquiry was held before passing the dismissal order. It is further submitted that the third respondent has no power and jurisdiction to dismiss an employee from service. It is submitted that the second respondent alone is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee and to dismiss an employee, as per Section 106 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader seeks to sustain the dismissal order, based on the reply affidavit filed in the Original Application. 7. I have perused the entire documents available on record. In fact, the reply affidavit makes it clear that the impugned order was passed, based on the allegations. The entire reply affidavit proceeds that the petitioner committed serious allegations. Therefore, the dismissal order is a stigmatic one. Since the right of livelihood of the petitioner is deprived, the respondents are bound to hold an enquiry, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in d.k.yadav vs. J.m.a. Industries ltd., reported in 1993 (3) scc 259 . Further, this Court in an identical case in R.Palanivel Vs. Commisioner, Gingee Panchayat Union, Villupuram District And Another Reported In 2008 (5) Mlj 1284 held that the Panchayat Assistant should not be removed from service without holding an enquiry, if the removal is based on allegations. 8. Further, this Court in an identical case in R.Palanivel Vs. Commisioner, Gingee Panchayat Union, Villupuram District And Another Reported In 2008 (5) Mlj 1284 held that the Panchayat Assistant should not be removed from service without holding an enquiry, if the removal is based on allegations. 8. I had an occasion to consider a similar matter in W.P.No.9436 of 2007, wherein it has been clearly held that terminating the services of a Panchayat Assistant, without holding enquiry, is not valid and the President of a Panchayat Union has no power and jurisdiction to pass dismissal order, in view of Section 106 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. 9. In the said circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. However, it is left to the concerned competent authority to take appropriate action, if so advised. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner immediately into service, not less than four weeks from today. No costs.