JUDGMENT

(R.HEMALATHA, J.)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, Dhanalakshmi, formerly Special Public Prosecutor of Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruvallur. She has sought for quashing the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.1214 dated 16.10.2019 in which her services as Special Public Prosecutor was terminated with immediate effect.

2.Briefly the facts of the case is elicited below :

The petitioner was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor of Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruvallur vide G.O.(D) No.680 Home (Cts VIA) Department dated 02.09.2015 on temporary basis and subsequently was appointed to the same post for a period of three years vide G.O.(D) No.42, Home (Courts - VIA) Department dated 08.01.2018. According to her, she was sincere and hardworking and out of 439 cases disposed, she was instrumental in ensuring conviction and severe punishments in 16 cases which was widely appreciated by the Police, Bench and Bar. However, according to her an anonymous complaint against her casting aspersions on her honesty and integrity was taken cognisance by the then District Collector Thiruvallur (2nd respondent) who summoned her on 11.07.2019 and recorded her statement and remarks on the said complaint. Based on the report of the then Superintendent of Police (3rd respondent) and the District Collector's findings, the State Government (1st respondent) issued the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1214 dated 16.10.2019 terminating her service as Special Public Prosecutor. This according to the petitioner was unreasonable and unjust. It also was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constituion of India.

3.Per Contra, the first respondent in his reply affidavit highlighted the following:

i. The complaint against her was not an anonymous letter but a formal one by the Thiruvalllur Advocate Association about her dishonesty.

ii. Her poor track record of losing as many as 150 cases due to her deliberate inaction was in fact true.

iii. There was a written complaint from one Kalaiselvan alleging that he was an eyewitness to the petitioner taking illegal gratification from the accused and informing the complainant Kalaiselvan that he had a weak case. His daughter was a victim of dowry and the petitioner had the audacity to tell him that he had a weak case. The accused persons claimed of assured acquittal due to the assurance given by the petitioner.

iv. The second respondent had given the petitioner an opportunity to explain herself.

v. The post was a temporary one and there was no hard and fast rule as to the prior notice for termination. She was even now eligible for claiming the one month retainer fee in lieu of one month notice.

vi. Her moral turpitude and integrity were found to be seriously adverse and her termination cannot be challenged.

4.Heard, Mr.P.Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5.On perusal of all the records presented before this Court we find the following facts :

i. The second respondent did not merely rely on the complaint letter dated 13.06.2019 preferred by Thiruvallur Advocates Association.

ii. The second respondent wrote to the Superintendent of Police vide letter dated 09.07.2019 to find out the truth of the allegations made against the petitioner.

iii. The Superintendent of Police vide his letter dated 20.09.2019 had verified the facts and stated that the allegations of corruption made against the petitioner was true and that she had also misused her position by extracting menial work from the police constables on Court duty. It was also brought to light that on 04.07.2019 there was a 'road roko' agitation by the Advocates in front of the Mahila Court seeking removal of the petitioner from her post.

iv. The District Collector in turn wrote to the first respondent on

04.10.2019 stating the facts and the findings of the Superintendent of Police with specific cases of the petitione