JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were sponsored through employment exchange to the respondent Corporation for appointment to the post of Drivers. They were selected and appointed as Drivers on 04.10.2012. By the impugned order dated 21.02.2013, the second respondent cancelled the appointment, on the ground that the list of candidates sent by the employment office was fabricated and the names were included in a fraudulent manner. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the second respondent in Memo No. 26223/PaPi (Po) 2/ MaPoKa/2012 dated 21.02.2013, cancelling the appointment orders, without enquiry. 2. Heard both sides. 3. In similar circumstances, this Court passed an order dated 25.04.2013 in W.P. Nos. 11909 and 9770 to 9779 of 2013 setting aside the orders, cancelling the appointment and remanding the matter to the Transport Corporation to hold a regular enquiry and thereafter to pass appropriate orders. Paragraphs 3 to 9 of the aforesaid order is extracted hereunder : "3. The petitioners were sponsored by the District Employment Office to the respondent corporation, for appointment to the post of reserve drivers and reserve conductors. After being selected, they were appointed on 04.10.2012. 4. It appears that subsequently, the respondents came to know that the list of candidates sent by the District Employment Office was fabricated and that the names of the petitioners were included by fraudulent methods and that they had actually jumped seniority. On the basis of such a stand taken by the District Employment Officer in his communication dated 18.12.2012, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 21.02.2013, cancelling the orders of appointment of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. The main ground on which the petitioners challenge the impugned orders is that the impugned orders have been passed without any notice and without any opportunity to defend themselves. On this allegation, there is no dispute. 6. However, Mr. P.Paramasivadoss, learned counsel for the respondents very strongly contended that once fraud in the matter of securing employment is detected, the orders of cancellation of appointment, cannot be said to be illegal. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. M.Bhaskaran reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100. 7. It is true that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. M.Bhaskaran reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100. 7. It is true that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. No person can claim the benefit of any fraudulent acts to which he was a party. But the finding of fraud cannot be unilaterally arrived at by the respondents without even putting the petitioners on notice of such an allegation of fraud and without giving them an opportunity of hearing. This is a case where the petitioners produce documents to show that they never jumped seniority and that persons, who were enrolled in the Employment Exchange up to the previous day before their enrollment, have already secured employment. In other words, the petitioners claim that there was never any fraud. 8. Suppose the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is accepted, then it would mean that even a person, who has not committed a fraud can be sent out without enquiry just on an allegation of fraud and just on a letter sent by the District Employment Officer. The decision relied upon by him arose out of the case where the departmental enquiry was conducted and a finding of fraud was recorded. Therefore, more than helping the respondents, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court goes in favour of the petitioners. 9. In view of the above, writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners into service. After reinstatement, it will be open to the respondents to place the petitioners under suspension if they so choose, frame charges, initiate disciplinary action against the petitioners giving all opportunities of hearing to the petitioners and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs." 10. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment, more particularly, paragraph 9 of the aforesaid order. Consequently, the M.Ps are closed. No costs.