I V SURESHA Vs. ZILLA PANCHAYAT HASSAN DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, assailing the resolution dated 31 st July, 2001 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-C, has presented this writ petition. Further, he has sought for a direction, directing the second respondent to pay the salary of the petitioner from April 2000 by considering his representation vide Annexure-B.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the second respondent had passed a resolution recommending the appointment of the petitioner and the same has been sent for approval to the Taluk Panchayat. The Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat has forwarded the recommendation made by the second respondent with his covering letter dated 26th August, 1996 to the first respondent for appointment of the petitioner as 'waterman'. In pursuance of the said recommendation made by the second respondent herein, the first respondent has appointed the petitioner as 'waterman' on monthly salary of Rs. 300/- by its order dated 27th September, 1996 vide Annexure-A. It is the case of the petitioner that, after appointment of the petitioner as 'waterman', the petitioner has been discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the first respondent, second respondent and also the villagers. Though, the petitioner was rendering his services without any blemish and without any complaint against him, the respondents have failed to pay the salary to the petitioner and when he has requested to pay the salary, the second respondent has been postponing the matter on some ground or the other without any justification and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to give a representation dated 16th July, 2001 to the second respondent to pay the salary of the petitioner from the month of April 2000 vide Annexure-B, requesting the second respondent to pay the salary. Instead of considering his request for payment of salary, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the second respondent has passed a resolution dated 31st July, 2001 vide Annexure-C, terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that he is not working properly and there is complaint against him by the villagers and that the petitioner is financially far better than the third respondent herein and recommending the third respondent for appointment as 'waterman' subject to approval by the Competent Authority. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned resolution passed by the second respondent, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(3.) THE principal ground urged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the impugned resolution passed by the second respondent is illegal, arbitrary and capricious. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has not been notified or afforded any opportunity of being heard before terminating his services. Without following the relevant provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, the respondents have no power to terminate the services of the petitioner without the approval from the authorities. The second respondent, being only a recommending body, has no power to terminate the services of the petitioner without issuing notice. The second respondent, without even conducting an enquiry, has gone to the extent of recommending the third respondent for appointment as 'waterman' in place of the petitioner. If opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner, the petitioner would have substantiated his case that, at no point of time, the petitioner has given any room for complaints from the villagers or in discharging his duties. Therefore, the impugned resolution passed by the second respondent is opposed to law and probabilities of the case. Hence, it is liable to be set aside.