Judgment :- 1. On being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the petitioner was appointed as Gardener on daily wages on 04.9.1986. The petitioner was subsequently given appointment as Sanitary worker on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.450–10-570-15-720 on 05.04.1988. 2. The petitioner was thereafter reverted by issuing fresh appointment letter as Gardener on daily wage basis without assigning any reasons. 3. For the reasons best known, the petitioner did not choose to challenge the order of reversion and accepted his appointment as Gardener on daily wage basis. The petitioner continued in service till the order of dismissal was passed on 01.03.2001. 4. The allegations against the petitioner was that, he cheated students by collecting money from them. The following students were said to have been cheated by petitioner, viz., Mr. G. Sathyanarayan, Mr. N. Panneerselvam, Ms. D. Mohana, Ms. V. Ammu, Ms. K. Kalaiarasi, S. Ranganathan and three other students. 5. The petitioner was issued show cause notice, to which he submitted his explanation taking a stand, that there was no question of cheating, as the petitioner had taken loan from students for the reason, that he was not receiving his salary regularly from the college. 6. On receipt of explanation from the petitioner, no charge memo was served, nor the petitioner was supplied a copy of the complaint, submitted by the students. 7. Thereafter, without holding any enquiry to prove the serious allegations of cheating, the petitioner was dismissed from service, vide impugned orders Na.Ka.No.186/A/2001 dated 16.3.2001 and O.Mu.No.59449/B4/2001 dated 05.02.2002. The amount received by petitioner was returned to the students out of his dues. 8. The petitioner challenged the impugned order of dismissal, on the ground, that though the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed by way of stigmatic order, but no enquiry was held before imposing the major punishment. The order is also challenged, being totally arbitrary and being based on no evidence. None of the students, who were alleged to have been cheated, was examined by the competent authority, and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross examine those students, to prove his stand of having taken a loan from them on returnable basis. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended, that the impugned order being patently illegal and arbitrary, thus, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended, that the impugned order being patently illegal and arbitrary, thus, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. 10. It is also contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order of dismissal, cannot be sustained in law, as it has been passed in violation of statutory rules, governing the service condition of the employee. 11. The learned Special Government Pleader opposed this writ petition on the ground that, the petitioner, being a temporary employee, was not governed by the service rules, therefore, there was no necessity to hold the departmental enquiry to prove the charge. It is also contention of learned Special Government Pleader, that the petitioner had accepted having received the money from students, therefore, in view of the admission, there was no necessity to hold any enquiry. The order of dismissal is based on serious allegations of cheating, which does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 12. It is further contention of learned Special Government Pleader, that the appeal filed by petitioner was ordered to be dismissed, being time barred, as the petitioner had neither filed an application for condonation of delay, nor submitted any explanation for delay in the grounds of appeal for condonation of delay. 13. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law, that in absence of any explanation for condonation of delay, the appeal is to be dismissed, being time barred. 14. However, in this case, the stand of the respondents is, that the petitioner was not governed by the service rules, therefore, the remedy of appeal was itself not available to the petitioner. Even otherwise, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 can interfere with the order of dismissal, which is patently illegal and void, having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 15. It is well settled law, that a stigmatic order of dismissal cannot be passed without holding departmental enquiry and giving opportunity of hearing to the delinquent official to defend himself. 16. Even if for the sake of argument, it is taken that the service rules were not applicable to the petitioner, still before passing a stigmatic order, the competent authority was bound to follow the principles of natural justice and record a positive finding, regarding allegations of misconduct. 17. 16. Even if for the sake of argument, it is taken that the service rules were not applicable to the petitioner, still before passing a stigmatic order, the competent authority was bound to follow the principles of natural justice and record a positive finding, regarding allegations of misconduct. 17. The contention of learned Special Government Pleader, that there was admission by petitioner, on the face of it, is misconceived. The petitioner never accepted having cheated any student, but had taken a stand, that he received the money as loan from the students for his daily need, for want of regular disbursement of salary. It was necessary for the respondents, to have examined the students, by giving liberty to petitioner to cross examine them to find out the truth. 18. The respondents in this case did not even serve a copy of the complaint received against the petitioner. The order, therefore, being in violation of principles of natural justice, can be said to be not only illegal, but void, thus, not sustainable in law. 19. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order of dismissal is set aside with all consequential benefits, flowing from this order. 20. No costs.