The court emphasized that the legislative fiction of abatement under Section 11 of the Act could not override the specific mandamus issued by the court to consider the petitioner's case, ensuring the petitioner's entitlement to pensionary benefits.

1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.10068 of 1997 seeking to set aside the order of the fourth respondent Tahsildar dated 9. 1997 and for a consequential direction to pay the pension to the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.828, Revenue Department, dated 28. 1996.

2. The petitioner was working as a Village officer at Kootapanai Village, Radhapuram Taluk. He was dismissed from service on 13. 1973 for failure to report illicit cutting of Odai trees in certain Survey Numbers and also having accompanied with those illicit tree cutters. He filed an appeal to the District Revenue Officer, Thirunelveli, which was dismissed by him on 112. 1975. A Revision Petition was filed by him to the first respondent State, which was also rejected on 25. 1975.

3. As against the rejection of the appellate order, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court being W.P.No.3883 of 1979. Sathiadev, J, before whom the matter came up, allowed the Writ Petition by a judgment dated 17. 1982. In the operative portion of the order, the learned Judge had given the following direction:

"These decisions go to show that once a delinquent desires an oral enquiry, it is mandatory on the part of the enquiry officer to hold such an enquiry. On the failure of the delinquent to appear, enquiry officer cannot hold the charges as proved, in the absence of the Department adducing oral and documentary evidence, as may be necessary.

Therefore, there being a failure to adhere to the mandatory requirements, the further orders passed based on such a provisional conclusion, being illegal, the impugned orders are hereby set aside.

On the impugned orders being set aside, but for the post being abolished, it would have enabled petitioner to be restored to service, and fresh enquiry to be held against him. Additional Government Pleader would state that, in such an event, he would have been placed under suspension and fresh enquiry proceeded. Now that the posts of Village Officers have been abolished, if the State desires to hold an enquiry, it is entirely for it to conduct such an enquiry and pass suitable orders thereon in respect of matters, which have arisen before the abolition of post. If it comes to the conclusion that the petitioner was not guilty, it would only enable him to secure the monetary benefits to which he would be entitled, till the date of the abolition of the post.

It was also contended by Additional Government Pleader that, after the post of was abolished, there is no scope for holding of an enquiry and that the Writ Petition has become infructuous. If the impugned order is to be retained on each a ground, it would result in a Government servant having been visited with certain findings of guilt, which could not be sustained in law. It would thus have far-reaching adverse effects on his future prospects. Merely because the posts have been abolished before finality could be arrived at in proceedings pending in Courts, it would not mean that the Government servants would have to carry on their shoulders the charges levelled against him, and which have been arrived at contravening mandatory requirements. He is entitled to be freed from the blemish, irrespective of whatever might have happened to the post. Hence, the relief he had sought for in this petition is available to him to quash the orders in respect of a post, which has been abolished, subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition. By virtue of the order passed by this court, the State is hereby enabled to hold an enquiry in respect of a matter which had arisen before the abolition of the post and pass the necessary orders, thereon, or drop the proceedings if it so decides. It is made clear that the order passed herein would not enable him to demand for the post of Village Headman to be given to him as of right, till further orders are passed by third respondent, of what it proposes to do.

There is yet another reasons why petitioner is anxious to secure an order, in that, if the charges framed a