A dismissal order issued without an enquiry under the guise of a 'charge memo-cum-dismissal order' due to impending superannuation violates natural justice and service law, rendering the bar of an alternate remedy inapplicable in writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

The order impugned before the Writ Court dated 25.04.2017 is a charge memo - cum - dismissal order, which is unknown to service jurisprudence.

2. When the same was questioned before the Reviewing Authority under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 , it was not considered in proper perspective by the Reviewing Authority. As against which, when the appellant approached the Writ Court, the Writ Court, saying that Section 154 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 , could be invoked by filing a review and that would be the effective alternate remedy. On that ground, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it was dismissed, was the order passed by the Writ Court through the order impugned dated 26.02.2025.

3. Mrs.M.Geetha Thamaraiselvan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, though made an attempt to sustain the order impugned, we are not impressed with the said approach on the part of respondents 1 and 2 to defend the order impugned passed by the Writ Court. The reason being that, the very order dated 25.04.2017 is styled as charge memo - cum - dismissal order. The order of dismissal has been passed in that order by citing the following reasons:-

“8/ ePh ; tUfpw 30/04/2017y ; 58 vaJ g{h;j;jpahfp gzp Xa;t [ bgWk ; taij mile;Jtpl;ljhy ; ck;kPJ ,e;j Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs ; Fwpj;J cs;tprhuiz elj;Jtjw;f;F rhj;jpak; ,y;iy/ nkYk; ck;kPjhd ,e;j Fw;wr;rhl;L nkw;go jpU/nf/bghd;Drhkpapd; g[fhhpd; KyKk; mtuJ mry; ,l;L itg;g [ ,urPJ kw;Wk ; fld ; gjpntl;od ; KyKk; epUgpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhy; ck;ik eph;thfk; cldoahf epue;jpu ntiyePf;fk; bra;fpwJ/ ,J Fwpj;J ePh; VnjDk; tHf;Ffs; ePjpkd;wj;jpd ; Kd;g [ bjhlUk ; gl;rj;jpy ; eph;thfk; ck;kPjhd ,e;j Fw;wr;rhl;il ePjpkd;wj;jpd; Kd;g [ epUg;gpf;Fk ; chpikia jf;f itj;J bfhs;fpwJ vd;gij mwpat[k;/”

4. Merely because on 30.04.2017, the appellant/writ petitioner superannuated or attained the age of superannuation, it was stated by the employer that no enquiry could be conducted and no disciplinary proceedings could be initiated and therefore, he is to be removed from service and accordingly, the dismissal order was passed.

5. The said approach made in making the dismissal against the appellant/writ petitioner is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the Service law governing the service conditions of the employee, that is the appellant/writ petitioner. When that being the position, the question of an alternate remedy would not stand in the way of entertaining the writ petition.

6. Hence, the very approach of the Writ Court, in our considered view, might be erroneous and therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the Writ Court by remitting the matter back to the Writ Court with a request to the Writ Court to take up the writ petition and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders either way as early as possible.

7. With these, the writ appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.