ORDER 1. The petitioner was appointed as Shop Salesman in the TASMAC Retail Outlet, Shop No. 6222, Modamangalam, Namakkal District. He was paid consolidated pay of Rs. 1,500/- per month. 2. While so, the said Shop was inspected by the Area Supervisors on 9.9.2008. During the inspection, the Area Supervisors found that in 4 liquor bottles, adulteration was made, by mixing water. 3. Based on the report dated 9.9.2008 of the Area Supervisors, the petitioner was placed under suspension, by the third respondent, by an order dated 9.9.2008. 4. Thereafter, the third respondent issued a charge memo dated 12.2.2009 to the petitioner. The crux of the allegations made in the charge memo was that the petitioner was responsible for the adulteration made in the 4 liquor bottles. It was further alleged that there was a shortage of Rs. 1402/-. 5. However, the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. 6. Thereafter, the Godown Manager (Assistant Manager) was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was directed to appear before him for an enquiry. 7. The petitioner alleges that the Enquiry Officer took his signatures in blank papers and informed him that he would be reinstated in service. He further alleges that if he fails to sign the blank papers, he would be terminated from service. 8. While so, the third respondent passed an order dated 8.4.2011 dismissing the petitioner from service, based on the report of the Enquiry Officer. 9. The petitioner alleged that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to him and he was not asked to give his comments thereon. 10. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 8.4.2011 of the third respondent and for a consequential direction to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. 11. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents has made submissions based on instructions. 12. Heard the submissions made on either side. 13. The petitioner made serious allegations that the Enquiry Officer obtained his signature in the blank papers. He also alleged that he denied the charges levelled against him. In this regard, para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is extracted hereunder: “4. I further submit that the 3rd respondent has not issued any show cause notice to me. He also alleged that he denied the charges levelled against him. In this regard, para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is extracted hereunder: “4. I further submit that the 3rd respondent has not issued any show cause notice to me. Besides being shocked by the pre-determined action of the District Manager, I denied the charges levelled against me that I have not committed any such act. Subsequently when I appear before the Godown Manager (Assistant Manager), he informed me that if I sign the paper prepared by him he will immediately order reinstatement otherwise he will pass order of termination. Consequently, I signed papers preferred by him. By making use of the said letter, without holding any proper enquiry whatsoever in a manner known to law, the 3rd respondent passed the order of dismissal on 8.4.2011.” 14. The petitioner has also stated in Ground (E) of the affidavit that he was not given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charges and to put questions by way of cross examination. In this regard, Ground (E) of the affidavit is extracted hereunder: “(E) The respondents failed to follow the elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires and as such impugned orders are liable to be quashed.” 15. As stated above, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. Further, the dismissal order itself reveals that no witnesses were examined on the side of the Department and no documents were produced. The dismissal order proceeds that the Enquiry Officer found him guilty, based on the pleadings made by the petitioner in the enquiry. The same is disputed by the petitioner. The dismissal is solely based on the alleged admission made by the petitioner in the enquiry. Further, the dismissal order also nowhere states that the report of the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the petitioner. The comments of the petitioner on the report of the Enquiry Officer was not sought. The same is disputed by the petitioner. The dismissal is solely based on the alleged admission made by the petitioner in the enquiry. Further, the dismissal order also nowhere states that the report of the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the petitioner. The comments of the petitioner on the report of the Enquiry Officer was not sought. If the petitioner was supplied with the report of the Enquiry Officer and his comments were called for, he could have had an opportunity to bring to the notice of the third respondent that the enquiry was conducted in an arbitrary manner, by taking his signature in the blank papers. 16. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the Honourable Supreme Court in ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 has held that the principles of natural justice requires furnishing of the report of the Enquiry Officer to the delinquent employee and his comments thereon shall be obtained before accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer. 17. In my view, the dismissal order passed by the third respondent is opposed to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. 18. On earlier occasion, in a similar matter, the writ appeal preferred by TASMAC in W.A. (MD) No. 27 of 2009 was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court on 27.1.2009. While confirming the order of the learned single Judge, the Division Bench has noticed that based on the letters admitting the guilt, the workmen were terminated in TASMAC. In this regard, para 8 of the judgment in W.A. (MD) No. 27 of 2009 is extracted hereunder: “8. Be that as it may, we have come across a number of cases where allegations of adulteration and other serious misconduct levelled against the TASMAC Salesmen, whose services came to be terminated based on certain letters said to have been given by the concerned TASMAC Salesmen admitting their guilt on the spot. Since numerous cases of this nature are being reported, it is high time that the appellant corporation instead of resorting to such shortcut method of terminating the services, even after noting such serious allegations of misconduct by such TASMAC employees, they can well be advised to take proper disciplinary action before resorting to termination of the services of such employees in order to have effective disciplinary control over those employees. Such a procedure can be followed in the matter of taking disciplinary action against these employees, especially, for imposing the extreme punishment of dismissal. It is high time that the appellant corporation who is stated to have employed several thousand salesmen to run the TASMAC shops set up a separate machinery for following the proper disciplinary procedure so that any action taken by TASMAC can be justified when the same is challenged before the Court of Law. It will also have an effective control over such employees in the matter of their day-to-day administrative control over their employees. Irrespective of serious allegations of adulteration, sale of empty bottles and such other misconduct, the salesmen got away with such punishment for not following the proper disciplinary procedure while imposing the punishment on them. We hope and trust that the appellant corporation will appreciate our observations in the proper perspective and take necessary measures to implement the proper procedure in taking disciplinary action against its employees in future.” 19. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P. No. 15751 of 2009 (decided on 26.4.2010) set aside the dismissal order and allowed the writ petition, since it found that the workman’s alleged confession was not voluntary. However, the respondents were permitted to conduct fresh enquiry, if they so desire. In this regard, para 6 of the order passed in W.P. No. 15751 of 2009is extracted hereunder: “6. In the light of the above, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.3.2009 passed by the first respondent stands set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. However, it is open to the respondents – TASMAC to conduct any fresh enquiry in accordance with law, if they so desire. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 20. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 8.4.2011 of the third respondent is set aside and a direction is issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service, without backwages, but with continuity of service, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 21. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction. No costs. Petition disposed of.