Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as Salesman on a consolidated wage of Rs.2000/-p.m by order dated 18.12.2004 of the District Manager-I, Coimbatore Region. He was appointed in Shop No.1635 at Periyanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore. 2. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 10.8.2007 on the ground that there was a shortage of Rs.5,529/- in Shop No.1708 in which he was employed. 3. The District Manager-I of the respondents-Corporation passed another order dated 14.8.2007 adjusting Rs.5,529/- from the caution deposit amount of Rs.15000/- made by the petitioner at the time of appointment. The petitioner was directed to make good the aforesaid amount in the caution deposit. The petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.5,529/-on 13.2.2010. 4. While so, the District Manager-I issued a show cause notice dated 15.3.2010 directing the petitioner to explain as to why action shall not be taken for the shortage of Rs.5,529/- caused by him in Shop No.1708. 5. The petitioner gave explanation dated 15.9.2010 and submitted that he paid the amount of Rs.5,529/- and was without employment for more than 2 years and he requested to reinstate him in service. 6. Since there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23458/2010 seeking to quash the order dated 10.8.2007 placing him under suspension and for consequential direction to reinstate him with all monetary benefits. The W.P.No.23458/2010 was disposed of on 9.11.2010 directing the respondents to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner from 10.8.2007 and after paying the arrears of subsistence allowance the respondents can issue charge memo and proceed in accordance with law. 7. According to the petitioner, the said order was not complied with and he was not paid the arrears of subsistence allowance and departmental action was also not proceeded with. In these circumstances, he obtained an information under Right to Information Act to the effect that he was already terminated from service by order dated 14.8.2007. He was also furnished with the order of termination under the Right to Information Act. The order of termination was furnished to him along with letter dated 1.2.2011 by the Assistant Public Information Officer of TASMAC, Coimbatore. 8. Thereafter he filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 14.8.2007 and for consequential direction to reinstate him in service with all monetary benefits. 9. No counter affidavit is filed. 10. The order of termination was furnished to him along with letter dated 1.2.2011 by the Assistant Public Information Officer of TASMAC, Coimbatore. 8. Thereafter he filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 14.8.2007 and for consequential direction to reinstate him in service with all monetary benefits. 9. No counter affidavit is filed. 10. In view of the facts asmentioned above, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 11. Heard both sides. 12. The learned counsel for TASMAC has made submissions based on instructions. 13. The petitioner was employed as salesman with consolidated salary of Rs.2000/-p.m. He was placed under suspension by order dated 10.8.2007 that he caused shortfall of Rs.5,529/- while he was serving in Shop No.1708. The District Manager-I passed order dated 14.8.2007 adjusting Rs.5,529/- from the caution deposit of Rs.15000/- of the petitioner that was made at the time of his appointment. In the same order, he was directed to make good the amount of Rs.5,529/- in the caution deposit. 14. In this regard, the order dated 14.8.2007 in Na.Ka.No.2019/2007/RV 1 is extracted as under: “TAMIL” But another order in Na.Ka.No.1151/07/Mh;tp 1 dated 14.8.2007 was issued terminating the service of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner lost the eligibility criteria to continue in employment since the caution deposit of Rs.15000/- was not available due to the adjustment of Rs.5,529/- from the caution deposit. 15. The petitioner paid the amount of Rs.5,529/- on 13.2.2010 and the receipt for payment of Rs.5,529/- is enclosed in the typed set of papers. In view of the same, the petitioner should be reinstated in service. 16. The only reason given in the termination order is that there was a shortfall in the caution deposit. The caution deposit was made good on 13.2.2010. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the order dated 14.8.2007 terminating the services of the petitioner as under: 17. When the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 5.3.2010, there is no reference to the order dated 14.8.2007 terminating the services. Furthermore, when the petitioner filed W.P.No.23458 of 2010 seeking to quash the suspension order, the respondents did not inform this Court that he was terminated from services by order dated 14.8.2007. The petitioner obtained the order dated 14.8.2007 terminating his services only through Right to Information Act. 18. Furthermore, when the petitioner filed W.P.No.23458 of 2010 seeking to quash the suspension order, the respondents did not inform this Court that he was terminated from services by order dated 14.8.2007. The petitioner obtained the order dated 14.8.2007 terminating his services only through Right to Information Act. 18. In the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the petitioner should have been reinstated in services particularly when he was terminated only on the ground of shortfall of caution deposit. That is the only reason given in the termination order and the same is extracted above. The petitioner has averred in the affidavit that he is inclined to forego the backwages in the event of reinstating him in services. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that if the petitioner is reinstated in service, the petitioner should forego the backwages. There is no reason for denying the employment for the petitioner after he remitted the caution deposit on 13.2.2010. 19. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned termination order dated 14.8.2007 is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services without backwages but with continuity of service. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of three weeks from this date. No costs. “TAMIL” However the said order dated 14.8.2007 was not communicated to the petitioner.