JUDGMENT 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is a Dentist, who was selected by the Selection Committee, appointed by the District Collector, Perambalur, to provide Dental services on hired basis in Rural area, through upgraded Primary Health Centres in Perambalur District. She was given appointment order dated 24.2.2011 appointing her at Karai Primary Health Centre in Perambalur District by the third respondent. 3. The petitioner made a complaint dated 6.2.2012 to the first respondent making serious allegations against one Dental Assistant, Mr.Senthil,. She alleged that she was abused. It is also stated that she also gave a complaint about the behaviour of Senthil towards her. She further stated that she complained to the 3rd respondent about the aforesaid events on 22.1.2011 and also sent a telegram on 5.01.2012 besides making a complaint to the 1st respondent on 23.01.2012. She further stated that the notice dated 1.2.2012 was given directing her to vacate the Government quarters, wherein, she has been living. She also complained that the BMO Mr.Karthikeyan did not pay her salary for the months of December 2011 and January 2012. She had also stated that medicines and x-ray films were not provided. It is stated that she also sent a complaint dated 13.03.2012 to the second respondent/District Collector. The petitioner has three children aged 7 years and 1½ years (twins). 4. The third respondent sent a show cause notice dated 27.04.2012 making allegations against the petitioner that in spite of sending messages to the petitioner to come and meet him, the petitioner did not meet the third respondent and that she disobeyed the orders of the authorities and that she instigated the public against the authorities and was causing law and order problem. It was also alleged that she was not in rapport with the other Doctors, employees and the higher authorities and she did not give respect to them. 5. The petitioner gave a reply dated 3.5.2012 refuting those allegations. 6. In these circumstances, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 15.6.2012 terminating the services of the petitioner. The termination order refers to 11 documents/ proceedings. None of those documents, which were relied on for terminating the services of the petitioner, were furnished to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made review petition dated 25.6.2012 to the second respondent, District Collector. She made a complaint that the third respondent threatened her. The termination order refers to 11 documents/ proceedings. None of those documents, which were relied on for terminating the services of the petitioner, were furnished to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made review petition dated 25.6.2012 to the second respondent, District Collector. She made a complaint that the third respondent threatened her. She also stated that she requested transfer to Trichy and the same was not accepted. 7. The petitioner made review petition to the second respondent on 25.6.2012, requesting him to take action against BMO, Dr.Kartikeyan and Dental Assistant Senthil. But no action was taken against them. Instead, she was terminated. She also complained that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community and she is having three children. She requested to set aside the termination order and to hold a fresh enquiry by giving opportunity and to decide the matter afresh. 8. The second respondent rejected the review petition made by the petitioner by order dated 8.1.2013. 9. It is stated in the impugned order dated 8.1.2013 that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur was directed to enquire into the issue. It was found in the enquiry that the petitioner neglected in attending to her duty, never maintained rapport with her superiors, colleagues or subordinates and was indirectly instigating the village public to make undue protest causing nuisance to public tranquility. The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer further states that as per the version of the B.M.O., incharge of Primary Health Centre, the petitioner was allotted the Government quarters, as she was having three dependent children. But, she resorted to maintain unfriendly attitude with her neighbours and she consumed much of the available scarce water and electricity without paying tax or tariff. 10. It is stated in the impugned order dated 8.1.2013 that the Revenue Divisional Officer enquired one Dr.Mahalakshmi and she stated before the Revenue Divisional Officer that the petitioner had shown gross insubordination to the B.M.O., a Superior officer and had been also careless in signing the attendance to mark her presence to duty. The Revenue Divisional Officer recommended for termination of the services of the petitioner. It is stated that based on the report of Revenue Divisional Officer, the third respondent passed the order terminating the services of the petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer recommended for termination of the services of the petitioner. It is stated that based on the report of Revenue Divisional Officer, the third respondent passed the order terminating the services of the petitioner. It is stated that since the Revenue Divisional Officer enquired and submitted a report after a detailed enquiry, the second respondent is not inclined to interfere with the same. 11. The aforesaid narration makes it very clear that the impugned order dated 15.6.2012 and the order dated 8.1.2013 of the 3rd and 2nd respondents respectively are stigmatic. Serious allegations are made against the petitioner. The 3rd respondent relied on 11 proceedings/documents in the reference column of the impugned order dated 15.6.2012. Item No.8 referred in the impugned order is the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Ultimately, the same was not given to the petitioenr. Further more, the Revenue Divisional Officer did not conduct a proper enquiry and one person viz., Dr.Mahalakshmi, was enquired in the presence of the petitioner and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross examine her. The Revenue Divisional Officer also made a recommendation to terminate the petitioner from service. Further more, the impugned order dated 15.6.2012 refers to so many adverse complaint from others. Those materials were not given to the petitioner. Further more, when allegations were made against the 3rd respondent himself, the 3rd respondent could not have decided about the issue. He could have placed the matter before some the authority to take a decision about the issuing of charge sheet, getting explanation, holding enquiry and thereafter, passing final order after furnishing the report of the enquiry officer. The said procedure was not followed by the 3rd respondent. 12. The 3rd respondent, against whom allegations were made, simply terminated the services of the petitioner. In my view, the impugned order was passed in blatantviolation of principles of natural justice and the same is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission relied on the judgment reported in 2013(3) SCC 607 (State Bank of India and others v. Palak Modi and another) wherein, in paragraph Nos. 25 and 37, it has been held as follows:- "25. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission relied on the judgment reported in 2013(3) SCC 607 (State Bank of India and others v. Palak Modi and another) wherein, in paragraph Nos. 25 and 37, it has been held as follows:- "25. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that a probationer has no right to hold the post and his service can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post held by him. If the competent authority h old an inquiry for judging the suitability of he probationer or for his further continuance in service or for confirmation and such inquiry is the basis for taking decision to terminate his service, then the action of the competent authority cannot be castigated as punitive. However, if the allegation of misconduct constitutes the foundation of the action taken, the ultimate decision taken by the competent authority can be nullified on the ground of violation of he rules of natural justice.” 37. ... This exercise was not preceded by an inquiry involving the private respondents and no opportunity was given to them to defend themselves against the charge of use of unfair means. In other words, they were condemned unheard which, in our considered view, was legally permissible." 14. The 2nd respondent also did not advert to the aforesaid facts. The second respondent simply accepted the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, when the Revenue Divisional Officer did not conduct a fair enquiry giving opportunity to the petitioner, when allegations were made against the petitioner behind her back. 15. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned orders. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent and the order 08.01.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent are quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all benefits and a further direction is issued to the 1st respondent to entrust the disciplinary proceedings relating to the petitioner to some other Deputy Director, since some allegations are made against the 3rd respondent. 16. 16. The 1st respondent shall ensure that a regular charge memo is issued and explanation shall be obtained and an enquiry giving opportunity shall be held and the report of the inquiry officer shall be furnished to the petitioner and the views of the petitioner on the enquiry report shall be obtained and thereafter final orders shall be passed. 17. Taking into account the aforesaid fact, the first respondent can also consider about the request of the petitioner to transfer her to Trichy and in that event, the Deputy Director at Trichy can be appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter as stated above. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. It is for the first respondent to decide as to whether the petitioner shall be kept under suspension during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. It is needless to state that the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance, if she is placed under suspension. 18. The writ petition is allowed with the above observations. No costs.