Judgment 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, who is also Chairman of District Supply and Marketing Society, Ramanathapuram District. Through the impugned order, the petitioner was relieved from duty as Manager of District Supply and Marketing Society, Ramanathapuram with effect from 14.10.2014. The impugned order came to be passed based on certain allegations made against the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order mainly by contending that as the relieving order passed against the petitioner is stigmatic in nature, the same cannot be passed without following due procedure of law by issuing the charge memo and conducting an enquiry. 3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that even though the charge memo was not issued against the petitioner, since the present order impugned in this writ petition is the one relieving the petitioner from service, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the District Collector seeking for reinstatement in service. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as the present impugned order came to be passed by making certain allegations against the petitioner more particularly non-performance of his duty and non-completion of the task assigned by him, needless to say that if any such allegation is made, it should be certainly followed by issuing a charge memo against the petitioner and after obtaining his explanation, an enquiry should have been conducted. Admittedly, in this case, the respondent has not issued any charge memo and not conducted any enquiry. It appears that the charge memo referred to in the impugned order is in fact not a charge memo issued to the petitioner earlier, that too in respect of various bills. Even assuming that they have to be taken as a charge memo, not conducting an enquiry followed by the same, thereafter, would certainly vitiate the entire proceedings, especially when the petitioner herein is disputing the allegations made against him. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for proceedings against the petitioner by following due process law. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for proceedings against the petitioner by following due process law. Such exercise shall be done and final order shall be passed by the respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.