ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the impugned resolution dated 24.01.2013 passed by the 5th respondent and the subsequent impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.1156/A3/2013 dated 04.04.2013, vide which, the petitioner was terminated from service. 2. The case put forth by the petitioner in the writ petition is as follows: i) The 2nd respondent, vide proceedings in Ref.No.3998/P4SHS/08 dated 22.06.2009 directed the 4th respondent to recruit drivers and cleaner-cum-attender through Employment Exchange on consolidated pay of Rs.3,500/- and Rs.2,500/-per month respectively with further direction that in case of non availability of drivers, the said posts can be hired locally, pursuant to which, the 4th respondent instructed the 5th respondent to act as per the guidelines issued by the 2nd respondent. ii) It is submitted that since lesser number of persons were willing to work as Drivers on consolidated pay of Rs.3,500/-per month, the 5th respondent appointed the petitioner as Driver on daily wages at the Primary Health Centre, Narikudi by a resolution dated 14.07.2009 and an appointment order dated 02.09.2009 was also issued to that effect. While so, on one fine day, he was prevented from signing in the attendance, even though he had worked as Driver without any break for 4 years and was also not assigned any duty from 24.01.2013 in the 5th respondent office without assigning any reasons. Therefore, he applied for medical leave and the same was also sanctioned from 27.01.2013 to 31.03.2013 with some periodical breaks. iii) It is further submitted that he sent representations dated 20.02.2013 to the 3rd respondent and others, on the basis of which, the 3rd respondent directed the 4th respondent to conduct an enquiry and submit a report immediately, who in turn directed the 5th respondent to forward a report on the matter. In pursuance of the same, the 5th respondent sent a communication to the 4th respondent stating that owing to existence of excessive drivers, the petitioner was terminated from service vide resolution dated 24.01.2013, on account of which, the 4th respondent passed the proceedings dated 04.04.2013, which is impugned in this writ petition. In pursuance of the same, the 5th respondent sent a communication to the 4th respondent stating that owing to existence of excessive drivers, the petitioner was terminated from service vide resolution dated 24.01.2013, on account of which, the 4th respondent passed the proceedings dated 04.04.2013, which is impugned in this writ petition. iv) It is also submitted that no excessive drivers are there in the 5th respondent office and in fact, the 4th respondent on earlier occasion sought permission from the 4th respondent to fill up vacancies to the post of Drivers vide proceedings in Ne.Mu.Ka.No.2442/A1/88 dated 29.07.2001 and those vacancies were not filled up so far. He is the driver of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN67 G 0633 and after his termination, no person is appointed as driver for the said vehicle. Though he was granted medical leave till 31.03.2013 with periodical breaks, subsequent to the impugned resolution dated 24.01.2013 of the 5th respondent, he was paid consolidated pay for the month of January vide IOB Cheque No.402621 dated 06.02.2013. The act of the 4th and 5th respondents clearly shows that they have acted without proper application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned orders is liable to be set aside. 3. The 5th respondent has filed a counter, wherein it has been stated as follows: i) It is stated that there is a scheme in the National Level by name and style as “National Rural Health Mission” to improve the health of the rural people and the said project has been implemented by the State, namely, State Health Society / Tamil Nadu” under the control of the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. Hence, the 1st and 2nd respondents issued the proceedings to appoint the driver on temporary daily wages basis, which is not permanent. ii) It is also stated in the counter that the project is for a period of 5 years, i.e., from 2007 to 2012 and therefore, the authority has directed to terminate the temporary daily wage drivers, based on which, the petitioner was not allowed to work from 25.01.2013 as per resolution passed by Patient Welfare Society dated 24.01.2013. It is admitted that there is a vacancy for Driver in the 5th respondent's office for the project vehicles. 4. It is admitted that there is a vacancy for Driver in the 5th respondent's office for the project vehicles. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when other candidates, who were appointed like the petitioner are in service, the termination of the petitioner amounts to selective discrimination. The impugned resolution terminating the service of the petitioner was passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, which is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate has contended that the petitioner was appointed only on temporary basis and no permanent appointment order was issued to him. Since the project is for a limited period, the petitioner was ousted from the temporary employment, which cannot be questioned by him at all. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 7. It is seen that pursuant to the registration of the petitioner's name in the employment exchange on 01.10.1997, he was appointed as Driver-cum-Cleaner to the Mobile Medical Unit attached to the Primary Health Centre by proceedings dated 02.09.2009 and he was discharging his duties without any blemish. He has been appointed pursuant to the scheme called “National Rural Health Mission” and it is not disputed that the said scheme is still in existence. Suddenly, the service of the petitioner has been ousted based on the resolution dated 24.01.2013, which necessitated him to apply for medical leave in order to retain his continuity of service. 8. It is submitted by the petitioner that he has been disengaged from service without assigning any reason and that he has not committed any misconduct nor was he subjected to any disciplinary action in his entire service. 9. A perusal of the document produced by the petitioner, which was obtained under RTI Act from the 5th respondent shows that in his place, another person, by name Balamurugan has been appointed as Driver during the pendency of this writ petition and therefore, divesting of the duty of the petitioner is wholly illegal. The stand of the respondents that the petitioner has not approached this immediately, is not correct, because he was disengaged from service on 24.01.2013 and immediately thereafter, he has filed this writ petition in the month of April, 2013 itself. The stand of the respondents that the petitioner has not approached this immediately, is not correct, because he was disengaged from service on 24.01.2013 and immediately thereafter, he has filed this writ petition in the month of April, 2013 itself. Removal of a person without any enquiry and accommodating some other person in his place is unjust and arbitrary and is nothing, but colourable exercise of power. 10. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 99 , has held that since the works are time-bound, there is no need of the workmen beyond the completion of the works undertaken and further held that the employees have no right to claim regularization of their service, because of completion of 240 or more days of work, the factual position in the present case on hand is entirely different, where the Central Scheme is in very much force and the State Government is the appropriate authority. In this case, it appears that there is hire and fire policy and It cannot be so interpreted as to enable an employer to resort to the policy of hire and fire and to confer unguided power on the employer to renew or not to renew the contract irrespective of circumstances in which it was entered into or ignore the nature and extent of work for, which he was employed. Therefore, the act of the respondents in appointing another person in the place of the petitioner during the existence of the scheme is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the dismissal of an employee therein in the case of R.M. Parmar vs. Gujarat Electricity Board, reported in 1982 GLH 254, has observed as under: “3.(2) The State does not provide social benefits like unemployment allowance to enable a discharged employee to sustain himself and his family to some extent, as is being done in the developed countries. (4) Be it administration of criminal law or the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction in departmental proceedings, punishment is not and cannot be the 'end' in itself. Punishment for the sake of punishment cannot be the motto. Whilst deliberating upon the jurisprudential dimension the following factors must be considered - (1) ...... (4) Be it administration of criminal law or the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction in departmental proceedings, punishment is not and cannot be the 'end' in itself. Punishment for the sake of punishment cannot be the motto. Whilst deliberating upon the jurisprudential dimension the following factors must be considered - (1) ...... (2) The main purpose of a punishment is to correct the fault of the employee concerned by making him more alert in the future and to hold out a warning to the other employees to be careful in the discharge of their duties so that they do not expose themselves to similar punishment. And the approach to be made is the approach parents make towards an erring or misguided child.” 11. From the aforesaid decision, it is obvious that in case of departmental proceedings itself, broader perspective has to be applied and in the case on hand, there is no misconduct and that the State has failed to provide social benefits, more particularly the petitioner has been divested of his duties and in his place, another person has been inducted. 12. Therefore, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view the writ petition will have to be allowed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned resolution dated 24.01.2013 passed by the 5th respondent and the subsequent impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1156/A3/2013 dated 04.04.2013 passed by the 4th respondent is set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service with all benefits. 13. Though the petitioner is entitled to full backwages, considering the fact that in his place another person has been appointed and the Government has been paying him some consolidated amount towards salary, this Court directs the respondents to pay 50% of the wages from the date of the disengagement of the petitioner till the date of his reinstatement in the post based on his last drawn pay. The entire arrears shall have to be paid to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The entire arrears shall have to be paid to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated time, then the petitioner is entitled to interest @ 12@ p.a. In case of non compliance of this order by the concerned Officer within the period stipulated supra, the respondents shall recover the amount of interest from the errant officer after paying the amount to the petitioner. No costs.