Judgment The Original Application in O.A.No.1815 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a noon-meal organiser in the year 1983. While he was serving as noon-meal orgainser in Narayanamangalam Kandigai Panchayat Union, Perunkalathur Post, Arakkonam Taluk, he was placed under suspension on 212. 1999 and a charge-memo was issued on 30.12.1999 making as many as 13 charges. The Crux of the allegation is that he was irregular in attending the noon-meal centre and failed to obtain provisions for proper running of the organisation and failed to supply the rice and food items on 212. 1999, 212. 1999 and on 212. 1999. Apart from these allegations, certain other allegations relating to the incident that took place during the year 1992-1993 forms part of the charges. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 26.02.2000 denying the charges levelled against him. Further, he admitted the charge relating to non supply of food items on 212. 1999, 212. 1999 and on 212. 1999 due to ill health and all other charges were denied. Based on the explanation and admission of the Charge No.8, the impugned order dated 05.02.2001 was passed by the respondent terminating the service of the petitioner, without any enquiry. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order dated 05.02.2001 of the respondent. 4. Heard Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K. Vishnupriya, Additional Govt. Pleader, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 05.02.2001 of the respondent terminating the service of the petitioner is in violation of the principles of the natural justice, as no enquiry was conducted before passing the order. 6. The Learned Additional Govt. Advocate relied on the reply affidavit filed by the respondent and more particularly paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the affidavit. In paragraph No. 3 of the affidavit, it is stated that the noon-meal organisers are part time employees. The Tamil Nadu Government Service Rules are not applicable to them. Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules need not be followed. 3 and 4 of the affidavit. In paragraph No. 3 of the affidavit, it is stated that the noon-meal organisers are part time employees. The Tamil Nadu Government Service Rules are not applicable to them. Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules need not be followed. It is also submitted that, the charge sheet was not issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules. In paragraph No. 4 of the reply affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has submitted his explanation accepting the charges. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in passing the punishment order. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 8. The noon-meal organisers are holding civil post and they are also governed by the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules. In any event, even assuming that the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules are not applicable, the respondent cannot straight away dismiss an employee, who rendered 17 years of service without holding an enquiry particularly when 13 charges were made against him. The Honble Apex Court has categorically held in the decision reported in 2007(3) CTC 806 (G. Periannan Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government and others) that since the termination of service would result in the deprivation of livelihood, Article 21 of the Constitution of India requires holding of an enquiry before passing an order terminating the service of an employee. 9. Moreover, the respondent is not correct in terminating the services of petitioner holding enquiry, particularly when charge sheet was issued and when the petitioner submitted explanation, denying the allegations. 10. Since it is stated in paragraph No. 4 of the reply affidavit that the petitioner accepted the charges, i have gone through the explanation dated 20.06.2000. Except accepting to a limited extent that he was unable to attend duties between 212. 2009 to 212. 2009 due to ill health, the petitioner denied the allegations in respect of all other charges. In fact, that is the reason why, the impugned order confines to the charge relating to non supply of food items for cooking on 212. 1999, 212. 1999 and on 212. 1999. 11. 2009 to 212. 2009 due to ill health, the petitioner denied the allegations in respect of all other charges. In fact, that is the reason why, the impugned order confines to the charge relating to non supply of food items for cooking on 212. 1999, 212. 1999 and on 212. 1999. 11. Even if the petitioner was absent on those days, there were two other employees in the noon meal centre, namely, cook and helper to cook and they were responsible for cooking food for children in the absence of noon meal organiser. Hence, the reasoning given in the impugned order that the food was not supplied on 212. 2009, 212. 1999 and on 212. 2009 due to the absence of petitioner is not acceptable. In this connection, the impugned order dated 05.02.2001 is extracted here under: 12. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order was passed in violation of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order is also passed in violation of the principles of the natural justice. The impugned order is not correct in stating that the charges were established without any enquiry. The impugned order erroneously proceeds as if the petitioner pleaded guilty of the charges, while there was no admission from the petitioner, as explained above. 13. In these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. However, as the petitioner himself admitted that he was also responsible for non supply of food, he is not entitled to back wages. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and with all other benefits, but without back wages, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed the extent indicated above. No costs.