Provisional appointment cancellations must follow due disciplinary processes; removal without inquiry violates natural justice principles.

ORDER :

1. The present batch of writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners whose selection and the consequential appointment have been set at naught by cancelling the provisional selection and allotment made by the Commission/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short ‘the Commission’) citing malpractice alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in securing their appointment and also the impugned order removing the petitioners from service is put in issue before this Court.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts necessary for considering the present issue could be summarised thus :-

Pursuant to the selection and appointment of the petitioners to the post of Assistant/Personal Clerk in the Combined Civil Services Examination – II 2017- 2018 (Non-Interview Post) (Group-II A Services) in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service/Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, the respective petitioners joined the said post. Upon completion of the mandatory period of probation, the service of the petitioners were regularised. While some of the petitioners were arrested and upon their arrest the said petitioners were suspended, the other petitioners were suspended, which suspension of the petitioners was on various dates. The petitioners, who were arrested had obtained bail. Thereafter, the petitioners filed representation seeking revocation of their suspension by filing representation before the Commission. Since no orders were passed on the same writ petitions were filed seeking direction to the respondent to pass orders and inspite of directions issued by this Court to consider the representation of the petitioners in the light of G.O. (Ms.) No.81, Human Resources Management Department, however, the representation of the petitioners were rejected holding that revocation cannot be complied with citing that CBI investigation is under progress. Aggrieved by the same dismissed the petitioners preferred writ petitions seeking quashment of the plea for rejection of suspension and seeking reinstatement in which this Court directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioners in service. Inspite of the said order, vide the respective impunged proceedings, the petitioners were removed from service aggrieved by which the present writ petitions have been preferred.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners in unison submitted that the recruitment process relating to selection and allotment of the candidates had come to an end by 2018 and the petitioners, who were selected and allotted to the various departments have been appointed in the posts way back in the year 2018 and their probation was approved in the year 2020 and their services were regularised. However, out of blue, the order of suspension has been passed in the year 2020, much after regularisation on the ground of alleged malpractice alleged to have been committed by the respective petitioners in the selection process.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel that this Court, considering the prolonged suspension of the petitioners from service had, in the year 2023, passed the order directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners for reinstatement, which, however, was rejected citing the pending CBI enquiry.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the rejection order was challenged, which resulted in an affirmative direction by this Court to