WP/25152/2024 of A.JOSEPHINE VIMALA Vs THE DIRECTOR on 18 September 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 05.04.2024 on the only premise that before passing the termination order, no enquiry was conducted and adequate opportunity was not provided to substantiate her case.

2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that for commission of certain misdeeds by the tenant of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner was vicariously held liable. The learned counsel submitted that though the very impugned order is attached with the stigma, it cannot be termed as a simple discharge. When a termination order is attached with this stigma, unless enquiry is being conducted, it would prejudice the petitioner's career. Hence, he prayed to interfere with the same.

3. The said contention was totally objected by learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and he would invited the attention of this Court in respect of appointment letter issued to the petitioner and contended that the Government has got every right to terminate the service of the petitioner on account of unsatisfactory performance. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner was appointed only as a contractual employee. Since they came to know about her unsatisfactory performance by way of leasing out her building to a tenant to do certain illegal activities, is sufficient to terminate her from service and that before terminating her from service, they have fully satisfied the principles of natural justice by giving notice and sufficient opportunity were provided to the petitioner to defend herself. Therefore, there cannot be any infirmity in the impugned order.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

5. While looking into the factual position, the petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse vide appointment letter dated 01.10.2019. Though it was initially for a contractual period of two years, she has been continuously working from 2019 to 2024. In the meanwhile, on 04.04.2024, the petitioner was issued with a memorandum calling for an explanation by informing her that her residence is being used for certain illegal activities. On the next day, on 05.04.2024, the petitioner has given explanation by explaining that they have leased out to one Ayyappan and he has promised to the petitioner's husband that he would run a provisional shop, whereas now only she came to know that he has been using the said premises for illegal purpose. The explanation was given on 05.04.2024. On the very same day, the termination order was issued. While perusing the termination order, the termination order is attached with the stigma of certain delinquency and the delinquency being permitting the tenant to run an unapproved scan centre which factum is seriously disputed by the petitioner.

6. Now, the point to be considered is whether the domestic enquiry is required or not. In the case on hand, considering the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has been continuously working in the respondent's department since 2019 and upon perusal of the impugned order dated 05.04.2024, which is a termination attached with the stigma and not a termination simpliciter, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the absence of any enquiry would definitely prejudice her interest. Had there been any enquiry, she would have very well attempted to prove her case effectively. Therefore, this Court finds justification in favour of the petitioner.

7. In this case, the charge against the petitioner is that she has leased out her residence to some third party and the third party has committed certain illegal activity in the rented premises. Even according to the memo, there is no complicity between the tenant and the petitioner, except the fact that the petitioner has leased out the premises. Mere leasing out of the premises will no way termed as a misconduct. Furthermore, for any misconduct committed by the tenant, the landlord cannot be vicariously punished unless he was party to the crime.

8. Even according to the FIR, there are no complicity between the accused, who committed the offence in the premises rented out by the petitioner and the petitioner; and that she has not at all been arrayed as an accused in the criminal prosecution. In such scenario, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent has not conducted any enquiry before termination attached with stigma, the fact that there is no misconduct established from the show cause notice, this Court finds all justification to quash the impugned order. As a result of which, the present writ petition stands allowed. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. It is made clear that the non employment period viz., from the date of termination of service till her reinstatement, the petitioner is not entitled for any monetary benefits on the basis of “No work no pay”, except to count for continuity of service.

10. With the above observations, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. 18-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nr

To

1. The Director The Medical And Rural Health Servicesno.359- 361, D.M.S.Complex, Anna Salai, Chennai 600006

2. The Joint Director The Medical And Rural Health Services Collector Office Complex, 5th Floor, Thirupathur Town, Thirupathur District 635601

3. The Principal Medical Officer Head Government Hospital, Thirupathur Town, Thirupathur District 635601

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NR WP No. 25152 of 2024 18-09-2026