Principles of natural justice violated.

M. THANIKACHALAM, J.

The petitioners in all the three writ petitions have been ordered to be compulsorily retired from service by the first respondent. Questioning the said orders, these petitions are filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in service.

2. The facts which are necessary to dispose of these writ petitions are briefly as follows:

(a) The petitioner in W.P.No.10588/96 was working as a Junior Assistant, District Court, Coimbatore. Thiru Muthusamy, the petitioner in W.P.No.10589/1996 was working as a Process Server along with Thiru V. Sedhu, the petitioner in W.P.No.17931/1996, who was also working as a Process Server, District Court, Coimbatore. One Narayanansamy and Nallavarathan, were also working as Amins in the same Court.

(b) One Indrani has filed a petition against Theanrajan in R.C.O.P.No.343/94, for eviction under Section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, alleging that he had committed willful default in payment of rent, and therefore, he should be evicted from the premises. That case was taken on file by the Rent Controller of Coimbatore, and posted for the appearance of the respondent on 22.11.84. Thiru Nagarajan, when he was serving as Process Server at the relevant period, was entrusted with notice to be served upon the respondent in R.C.O.P.No.343/94 viz., Theanraj. It seems, Thiru Nagarajan instead of serving the notice in person to the said Theanraj, had forged the signature of Theanraj, as if the notice was served on Theanraj, which was verified by the Central Nazir also. On 22.11.84, since Thenraj, who is said to have received the notice, had not appeared, and therefore, the Rent Controller set him exparte. The evidence was recorded on 27.11.1984, and an exparte order of eviction came to be passed, on the same day. In pursuance of the ex parte order of eviction, it seems the petitioner in R.C.O.P. has filed an Execution Petition, in which a notice was ordered and the same was entrusted to Muthusamy, the then process server, for service. It seems the said Muthusamy, the petitioner in W.P.No.10589/96, without following the rules and instructions for services of notices, made an endorsement, as if Theanraj had refused to accept the process, when it was attempted to be served on him.

(c) In the same execution proceedings, it seems a notice was entrusted for the service upon the respondent, in the said R.C.O.P., to Thiru V. Sedhu, the petitioner in W.P.No.17931/96. The petitioner/delinquent, instead of serving the notice, properly, appears to have affixed on the door of the house of Theanraj, as if he refused to accept the notice.

(d) Thereafter, when the warrant to take the possession of the property was issued, the same was entrusted to one Narayanasamy, who has also failed to act as per the rules, and instead of executing the same properly, he appeared to have returned the same, as if the building was locked and therefore, he could not execute the warrant. At the instance of the decree holder, thereafter, the warrant was entrusted to one Nallavaradahan, Amin, who had executed the same, on 11.1.85 with the help of the police.

(e) The tenant of the premises in R.C.O.P.No.343/84, who had not been served with any notice in the above said proceedings, had preferred a complaint, dated 24.6.85 to the District Judge, Coimbatore, explaining how the notices were not served upon him, in all the above said R.C.O.P. proceedings and how he was thrown out from the premises, without following the due process of law.

(f) On the basis of the complaint given by Theanraj, that no notice was served upon him, at any point of time, enquiry was initiated, including vigilance enquiry. The enquiry conducted by the Special Officer of the High Court, revealed the fact, that Nagarajan 'forged' the signature of Theanraj, in collusion with Indrani, the petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.343/84, in order to hel