Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for Mandamus praying this Court to pass an order calling for the records pertaining to the order in Na.Ka.No.107/2002 dated 22.09.2006 passed by the respondent and to quash the same. 2. The Petitioner's case is that the Respondent/The Executive Officer, Pothanur Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Pothanur, called for the list of candidates from the Employment Exchange to fill up the post of Waterman on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,000/- per month. The Employment Exchange sponsored list of candidates and the Appointment Committee conducted interview, selected and appointed the petitioner on 23.07.1999. All of a sudden, on 02.05.2000, his services were terminated on the basis that the Director of Town Panchayat had not given permission to fill up the post of Waterman. 3. According to the Petitioner, the Director of Town Panchayat, subsequently, granted permission to fill up the post of Sanitary Supervisor. The then Executive Officer, reappointed the Petitioner as a Sanitary Supervisor on the ground that he was selected already and appointed by the Appointment Committee through Employment Exchange. As per the Government Order No.66 W 2/77 dated 27.02.1977, if a person, who was appointed on being sponsored through Employment Exchange and later terminated within 90 days from the date of termination in the same office and in the same vacancy without the Employment Exchange sponsorship, could be reappointed. Hence, the Petitioner was reappointed in the Respondent/Panchayat on 07.07.2000. His services were also regularised on 31.07.2000. 4. The then Executive Officer of the Respondent/ Panchayat passed an order dated 10.10.2000 terminating the services of the Petitioner mentioning that his appointment is against the rules. Therefore, the petitioner had filed O.A.No.7505 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and stay was also granted. Later, the Tribunal allowed the O.A.No.7505 of 2000 on the ground that the termination order was passed without any notice, being in violation of the principles of natural justice, but granted liberty to the Respondent to pass fresh order after providing opportunity. 5. Later, the Tribunal allowed the O.A.No.7505 of 2000 on the ground that the termination order was passed without any notice, being in violation of the principles of natural justice, but granted liberty to the Respondent to pass fresh order after providing opportunity. 5. Not satisfied with the same, the Respondent/ Panchayat moved this Court in W.P.No.40390 of 2002 and the Division Bench of this Court, on 18.10.2005, while dismissing the Writ Petition, has observed that the Tribunal, after setting aside the order of termination, permitted the Town Panchayat to pass fresh order, after giving opportunity to the Writ Petitioner and accordingly, came to the conclusion that it did not find any error or infirmity, calling for interference. 6. In the meanwhile, the person, who made initial appointment of the Petitioner, was issued with certain charges (including the Charge No.6, relating to illegal reappointment of the Petitioner) and a domestic enquiry was conducted and on perusal of the Enquiry Officer's report dated 29.08.2001 at page-11 of the typed set latently and patently indicates that the delinquent/ person, who appointed the Petitioner, submitted his explanation and the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the Charge No.6 relating to the illegal reappointment of the Petitioner was not proved and the Director had accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the reappointment of the Petitioner without resorting to the Employment Exchange was given a seal of approval by the Director of Town Panchayat as per his proceedings dated 29.08.2001. 7. During the course of hearing of the Writ Petition, it is brought to the notice of this Court, on the side of the Petitioner/Employee, that the Petitioner is presently working as Sanitary Supervisor in the Respondent/ Panchayat. 8. When that be the fact situation, this Court does not find good reason on the part of the Respondent/ Panchayat to issue show cause notice dated 22.09.2006 to the Petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him as per the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (although reliance was placed on the order passed in W.P.No.40390 of 2002 dated 18.10.2005, confirming the order of O.A.No.7505 of 2000). Obviously the proceedings of the Director of Town Panchayat dated 29.08.2001 wherein he had accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer (in regard to Charge No.6 relating to the person who appointed the Petitioner) was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Division Bench at the time of passing of the orders in W.P.No.40390 of 2002 dated 18.10.2005. To put it succinctly, there is no legitimate or bonafide reason on the part of the Respondent/ Panchayat to issue show cause notice dated 22.09.2006 to the Petitioner. 9. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Panchayat submits that the Respondent/ Panchayat has issued the show cause notice dated 22.09.2006 to the Petitioner/ Employee only based on the observation made by this Court in the order passed in W.P.No.40390 of 2002 dated 18.10.2005. In the considered opinion of this Court, the issuance of show cause notice dated 22.09.2006 to the Petitioner is not a bonafide and sound one, since the Director of Town Panchayat, even as early as on 29.08.2001, in his proceedings had accepted the domestic Enquiry Officer's finding relating to the Officer/Person (Appointing Authority), who reappointed the Petitioner without resorting to the Employment Exchange after his termination within 90 days, thereby giving a tacit approval in regard to the reappointment of the Petitioner. 10. Viewed in that perspective, the show cause notice dated 22.09.2006 issued by the Respondent/Panchayat is quashed and consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.