The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments cannot be terminated without following the mandatory procedures laid down under the relevant rules and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, and that the principles of natural justice must be adhered to in conducting an enquiry and affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties.

1. In all these writ petitions, facts, questions and all other issues are common. Therefore, the same are disposed of by a common order.

2. The petitioners question the orders passed by the first respondent, namely, the Commissioner of Town Panchayat dated 24.9.2008 and the consequential proceedings of the Executive Officer, Mettupalayam Town Panchayat, Trichy, the 4th respondent herein dated 14.10.2008, terminating the services of the petitioners, seeking to quash all the orders in these writ petitions.

3. According to the petitioners, they were sponsored for appointment by the District Employment Exchange, Trichy District in March 2007 for the post of Sanitary Workers in the Mettupalayam Town Panchayat in pursuance of the communication signed by the fourth respondent, which called for names from the Employment Exchange to fill up 11 vacancies. They were called for interview and on being satisfied with their qualifications and also on the basis of marks, they were appointed by the Executive Officer, Mettupalayam Town Panchayat on 27.4.2007 in the scale of pay of ` 2,550-3,200. After one year of their service, vide proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 9.5.2008, they were confirmed and made permanent in their capacity with effect from 2.5.2008. In this capacity, they are all working in the fourth respondent Town Panchayat.

3a. While that being so, suddenly, without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing or without any enquiry, the fourth respondent passed impugned proceedings dated 14.10.2008 cancelling the appcintmont orders of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that a perusal of the said order reveals that the orders of cancellation were purportedly made upon the directions given by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 24.9.2008 to cancel the appointment of the petitioners on the ground that there were alleged irregularities in sponsoring of their names by the District Employment Exchange. As per the direction of the first respondent, the fourth respondent had issued the impugned orders of cancellation of appointments.

3b. It is submitted by the petitioners that they were appointed for the said post of Sanitary Workers in the month of March 2007 and came in regular line after following all the norms. Therefore, they became Civil Servants and they are entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Being permanent employees, the services of the petitioners cannot be dispensed with without holding enquiry or without giving them an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned orders are arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and the petitioners have challenged not only the orders of cancellation passed by the fourth respondent dated 14.10.2008, but also the order of communication sent by the first respondent to the District Collector, Trichy dated 24.9.2008, on the ground that they were appointed after following the regular process of selection pursuant to sponsorship of their names by the District Employment Exchange, Trichy District and they also became permanent employees. They cannot be terminated without following the procedures contemplated under law as mandated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is their claim that the impugned orders are legally infirmed and liable to be set aside.

3c. The petitioners stated that a reading of the impugned orders shows that the first respondent had directed the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat to conduct an internal enquiry, which, they were not aware of. When such a report was relied on by the first respondent, it is obligatory on his part to forward a copy of the same to them. According to them, on obtaining explanations thereof and after following the procedures as per law, the respondents would have proceeded further in this matter. Hence, they submitted that the impugned orders suffer from legal infirmity, as the respondents have not even verified the genui