Judgment :- 1. G.Jayaraman had approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service and also the order of the appellate authority in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner died on 30.12.2005, and his legal representatives were brought on record. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the revenue department in the year 1964 and was promoted as Assistant (Upper Division Clerk) in the year 1972. The petitioner was subsequently promoted as Deputy Tahsildar. While holding the post of Deputy Tahsildar, the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Civil Supplies Corporation in the year 1976, where he worked till the year 1994 and thereafter reverted back to the parent department, i.e. Revenue department. 4. Inspite of the fact that the petitioner stood reverted back to the revenue department, it was on 27.02.1995, that the Senior Regional Manager of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation issued a charge memo to the petitioner on 13 charges of misconduct. 5. The reply submitted by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. Consequently, an enquiry officer was appointed who found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against the petitioner. 6. The respondent No.2 being head of the Civil Supplies Corporation accepted the enquiry report and ordered removal of the petitioner from service. The appeal filed against the order of removal was also dismissed. Though the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders by questioning the legality of the enquiry held against the petitioner, but it may be noticed that the impugned orders cannot be sustained being without jurisdiction. 7. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that the appointing authority in the case of Deputy Tahsildar is State Government. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was employee of the revenue department and not an employee of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation which is a State owned Corporation. 8. On the date of issuance of charge memo, the petitioner already stood reverted to his parent department, therefore, jurisdiction to deal with the petitioner was only by the revenue department and not by the Civil Supplies Corporation. 9. This fact leads to only one conclusion that issuance of charge memo, passing of order of removal are without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law. 9. This fact leads to only one conclusion that issuance of charge memo, passing of order of removal are without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law. 10. Consequently, the orders passed in appeal also is not sustainable in law. 11. For the reasons stated, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The legal heirs of the petitioner shall entitled to monetary benefits arising from passing of this order till the date of filing of death of Thiru G.Jayaraman. No cost.