Judgment :- With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Salesman in the same shop or any other shop with all consequential benefits attached to the said post and quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.R.V.2/57/2006, dated 14.12.2007. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Salesman in TASMAC Shop No.9518 by the first respondent in his proceedings in No.Na.Ka.R.V.2/60/05, dated 11.04.2005. The petitioner met the first respondent, District Manager, TASMAC, Ltd., Thiruvannammali on 2.1.2006 and gave complaint to him against the illegalities committed by the co-employees namely, the Supervisor Vijayakumar and the salesman Jothi, who indulged in various illegalities. Based on his complaint, an inspection was done and it was found that water was mixed in the liquor bottles by using screwdriver and that the bottles were made ready for sale and they also used to sell the liquor in loose. 4. While so, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 03.01.2006 to the petitioner, alleging that he made adulteration along with co-employees by mixing water in the liquor bottles and kept them ready for sale. He was also asked to attend the enquiry on 06.01.2006 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioner attended the enquiry and submitted his explanation denying the allegations. The first respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, suspended the petitioner from service on 11.03.2006. On 16.11.2007, the first respondent served another notice to the petitioner to attend enquiry on 30.11.2007 at about 11.00 a.m. before the Three Men Committee. Again, the petitioner attended enquiry before the Three Men Committee and submitted his explanation to the said Committee. 5. It is further submitted by the petitioner that during the enquiry, explanation only was received. No enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to prove his case. Without holding any enquiry, the order dated 14.12.2007 was passed by the first respondent dismissing the petitioner from service, stating that he mixed water in the liquor bottles by using screwdriver and kept them ready for sale and also used to sell the liquor in loose. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the impugned order dated 14.12.2007. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the impugned order dated 14.12.2007. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. However, the learned counsel for the respondents has produced written instructions given to him. 7. Heard Mr. P. Ganapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Muthuraj, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Though the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that an enquiry was held before passing the impugned order, the impugned order, nowhere refers to the holding of enquiry. In fact, written instructions in Rc.No.Rv.1/107/2012, dated 31.03.2001 issued to the learned standing counsel for the respondents makes it clear that no enquiry was held, before passing the dismissal order. 9. In the normal course, I could have remitted the matter back to the respondents for holding enquiry. But, in this case, I am not proposing to do so. I am of the view that there is no reason for proceeding against the petitioner when he complained about the illegalities committed by his co-employees. Based on his complaint, the Supervisor Vijayakumar and the Salesman Jothi were removed from service. The Salesman Jothi, who is a similarly placed person, has approached this Court and filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.3430 of 2011. This Court, by an order dated 06.11.2011 directed the respondents to reinstate the Salesman, Jothi into service, without back-wages. It is also ascertained that the Supervisor Mr. Vijayakumar also is in employment. 10. In any event, the crux of the allegation made against the petitioner is that while he made a complaint on 02.01.2006 about the illegalities committed by his co-employees, the same should have been done by the petitioner at the earlier point of time. 11. I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents, instead of appreciating the petitioner for coming forward to give compliant against his co-employees for indulging in illegalities, have chosen to dismiss him from service. Hence, I have no hesitation to set aside the impugned order. 12. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with back-wages, along with other benefits, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. 12. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with back-wages, along with other benefits, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.