JUDGMENT K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J. 1. By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 3. In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the order of termination dated 18.10.2012, passed by the fourth respondent. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Water Tank Operator on 01.06.2000, and his her mother was elected as the President of the fourth respondent's Panchayat for the year 2006-2011. After her tenure, the Panchayat election was conducted on 19.11.2011 and in the said election his mother acted against the interest of the fifth respondent. Therefore, the fifth respondent developed a grudge against his family and consequently, the petitioner was not given salary from 01.10.2011. He gave a representation to the third respondent on 30.07.2012 seeking disbursement of the salary. The fourth respondent sent a communication to the third respondent as though the petitioner has not turned for duty for nine months and therefore, he is not entitled for the salary. Ultimately, the fourth respondent passed the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner. The order of the termination is bad as the same is passed in violation of principles of natural justice since no show-cause notice or charge memo was issued against the petitioner. 4. Per contra, the fifth respondent filed a counter affidavit and contested the writ petition by stating that before passing the order of termination, the petitioner was issued with a notice and therefore there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent invited the attention of this Court to the notice dated 02.09.2012, issued to the petitioner and submitted that in view of the issuance of such notice, it cannot be contended by the petitioner that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. However, the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent fairly submitted that no charge memo was issued and no enquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 7. However, the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent fairly submitted that no charge memo was issued and no enquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is not in dispute, that the petitioner was appointed as a Water Tank Operator as early as on 01.06.2000 and he was continuously working in such capacity till the impugned order is passed. A perusal of the notice dated 02.09.2012, would only show that it is not a show cause notice in respect of the proposed disciplinary action to be taken against the petitioner and on the other hand, the tenor of the notice would show that the same was issued by indicating that the disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against him in future if the petitioner fails to report for duty. In any event, except issuing such notice, the fourth respondent has not issued any charge memo or conducted any enquiry before passing the impugned order of termination. 8. As the serious allegations are made against the petitioner, it is for the fourth respondent to issue a charge memo and conduct an enquiry before passing the impugned order of punishment. As both the mandatory requirements are specifically absent in this case, I am of the view, that the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 9. At this juncture, it is submitted by the fourth respondent, that even though the impugned order was passed as early as on 18.10.2012, the petitioner has approached this Court only on 13.12.2014 and in the meantime, the person who was appointed in the said post, is working and therefore, such appointment cannot be disturbed. 10. True, it is, that the petitioner has approached this Court after a period of two years. Therefore, he cannot seek reinstatement automatically even though the impugned order of termination is set aside, as the third party's interest has been created in the mean time by appointing another person in the said post. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part by setting aside the order of punishment dated 18.10.2012, and remitting back the matter to the fourth respondent to issue a charge memo to the petitioner and conduct enquiry and pass fresh orders thereafter. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part by setting aside the order of punishment dated 18.10.2012, and remitting back the matter to the fourth respondent to issue a charge memo to the petitioner and conduct enquiry and pass fresh orders thereafter. As the petitioner has made some allegations of bias against the fifth respondent, in the interest of justice, the third respondent, namely, Block Development Officer would appoint an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in this case. The fourth respondent will issue a charge memo within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner shall give a reply within a period of two weeks thereafter. On receipt of such reply, the third respondent namely Block Development Officer, will appoint an Enquiry Officer within a period of two weeks thereafter. On such appointment, the enquiry shall be conducted and the final orders shall be passed within a period of eight weeks therefrom. The petitioner as well as the fourth respondent shall appraise the third respondent after issuance of the charge memo and receipt of explanation of the petitioner immediately. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.