Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2720 (MAD)

V. Vajravelu v. District Collector

2013-07-29

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
ORDER With the consent of both the parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing since the matter lies in a narrow compass. 2. The petitioner was employed as Panchayat Assistant at Madhagondapalli Village Panchayat, Thally Block in Krishnagiri District. 3. The petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 5.4.2013 of the 3rd respondent without holding any enquiry. The impugned order is extracted here under : VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED 4/The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained since no enquiry was held before passing the dismissal order. It is well settled that no adverse order resulting in civil consequence could be passed without hearing the person concerned. 5. It is admitted that the impugned order was passed without enquiry. However, it is submitted that the petitioner has a remedy by way of appeal. 6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner shall seek his remedy by way of filing appeal. If the impugned order was passed after conducting the regular enquiry and the petitioner challenged such an order, I could have no hesitation in directing the petitioner to exhaust the appellate remedy. But, it is not so. 7. It is well settled that the Writ Petition can be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the order was made in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed since the same was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent to decide the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner by holding a proper enquiry. 8. At this juncture, it is stated that pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the petitioner was restored to service. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was restored to service as per the interim order of this Court, the petitioner is not paid wages. 10. In the circumstances, a direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to pay wages from the date of termination and the arrears shall be paid within a period of three weeks from today. 10. In the circumstances, a direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to pay wages from the date of termination and the arrears shall be paid within a period of three weeks from today. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be paid the wages every month so long as he is in employment. 11. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.