The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of natural justice and the principle that no person can be a Judge in his own cause and no witness can certify his own testimony as true.

1. The present Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the first respondent/Correspondent of St. Mary's High School, Kuthukkal Valasai, Thenkasi, in his proceedings No.Nil, dated 03.07.2000, in and by which, the service of the petitioner was terminated.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the first respondent Management School on 01.06.1995, in the sanctioned post and her appointment was continued in the same post till 04.10.1999. While so, when the petitioner applied for medical leave from 04.10.1999 to 31.12.1999, the first respondent placed the petitioner under suspension by order dated 27.12.1999 with effect from 01.01.2000. Even from the same order of suspension, the Management has accused the petitioner that she made a false complaint to the Police Department. Therefore, the behaviour of the petitioner, runs counter to the Code of Conduct and that she absented from duty for about three months by producing false certificate. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with suspension order, containing three charges. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 03.01.2000. Once again not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 14.02.2000, calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation as to why her service should not be terminated from the first respondent School. Thereafter, though the petitioner has submitted her explanation, not accepting the said explanation, the Enquiry Officer was appointed. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the Enquiry Report on 13.05.2000. On receipt of the said Enquiry Report, the petitioner was also issued with second show cause notice on 20.05.2000, for which the petitioner submitted her written representation on 22.06.2000. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the order of dismissal on 03.07.2000. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has come to this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no proper procedure was followed by the respondents from the stage of issuance of suspension order dated 27.12.1999 till the order of dismissal dated 03.07.2000 was passed. In order to demonstrate the irregularities committed by the first respondent in passing the dismissal order, the learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that the very suspension order issued by the first respondent/Correspondent on 27.12.1999, containing three allegations levelled against the petitioner cannot be issued. Even, if they issued the suspension order before proceeding for holding enquiry, unless and otherwise the first respondent issued a comprehensive charge memo clearly mentioning the charges against the petitioner, the enquiry cannot be further proceeded with. However, without even issuing any comprehensive charge memo, the first respondent who has also appeared as one of the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer, proceeded further and finally issued the suspension order containing three allegations against the petitioner in support of the suspension order as well as the charges made against the petitioner and thereafter, when the Enquiry Officer, on completion of the enquiry, submitted his report to the very same first respondent, who issued the suspension order along with charge memo, having appeared as a witness in support of the charges cannot be permitted to pass final order of dismissal from service.

4. In support of his argument, he has also relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ArjunChaubey Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1984) 2 SCC 578, wherein, it has been held that the roles of a Judge and a witness cannot be played by one and the same person and that it is futile to expect, when those roles are combined, that the Judge can hold the scales of justice even. The learned counsel for the petitioner further assailed the impugned o