1. The Petitioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this Court, praying for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of dismissal from service dated 6.12.2005, with a consequent prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

2. The Petitioner was issued a Charge Memo, alleging misconduct. The reply to the said Charge Memo was filed. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the Petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed in conduct an enquiry.

3. The Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charges, and the Competent Authority, by agreeing with the Enquiry officer, and finding the explanation of the Petitioner to the show cause notice issued being unsatisfactory, terminated his services.

4. The Petitioner, instead of filing a Statutory Appeal against the order of punishment, filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In support of the Writ Petition, Affidavit ha been filed, without pleading any document. In absence of being pleaded in the Writ Petition, the documents cannot form part of the pleadings.

6. In the typed set of papers, the Petitioner attached a copy of F.I.R., Writ Petition Charge Memo, findings of the Enquiry Officer, impugned Order, final report in R.C.S. 162/2006 & Order in R.C.S. 162/2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Madurai.

7. When the Writ Petition came up for final hearing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner tried to hand over Additional Typed Set of Papers, with Additional Affidavit, without disclosing under which provision of law, this Court, in exercise of Writ jurisdiction can take Additional Typed Set of Papers or Additional Affidavit, the copy of which has not been supplied to the Respondent, giving opportunity to the Respondent to controvert the averments made in the Additional Affidavit.

8. By virtue of Article 225 of the Constitution of India, and of all other powers hereunto, enabling the High Court to make Rules, the Rules to regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been framed.

9. Rules 1 & 2, Appendix V of the Appellate Side Rules read as under:

“1. An Application for a direction, order or Writ, including a Writ Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto or Prohibition (shall be by an Affidavit containing the facts and grounds and a petition containing the prayer) Petition to be entitled “Writ Petition NO. …. Of …..” and shall be filed in the office of the Registrar by the Petitioner or his duly authorized Advocate or Attorney.

2. Every such Petition shall set out the provision of law under which it is made, the name and description of the Petitioner and the Respondent, the nature of the relief sought and shall be accompanied by an Affidavit setting forth the facts and grounds of the relief sought, the other remedy, if any, available to the Petitioner and if not availed of, the reasons therefor. The Petition shall be signed by the Petitioner or his Advocate to Attorney”.

10. By way of amendment, after Rule 2 of Rules to regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the following sub-rules have been inserted:

“Rule 2(a):

All the Affidavits filed in support of the Petition, Counter Affidavits, Affidavits in reply to the Counter Affidavit and any other Supplementary Affidavit filed by any person in a Writ Petition or Miscellaneous Petition shall clearly state at the concluding portion of such Affidavit whether the statements made in the Affidavit are based on knowledge, information and belief or on records. Where statements are based on information, the source of such information should be disclosed. Where statements are based on records, sufficient particulars of records as far as practicable, should be given to enable proper identification of records. Contentions in the Affidavit should be verified as based on legal advice.

Rule 2(b):

Every do