P.RANJITH KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is a Driver working under the Hospital Management Committee-the second respondent, is challenging Ext.P4 order by which his services are terminated on the ground that he did not report for duty on 05.03.2017, even after the direction issued by the District Collector. It is stated that the petitioner, who was to report for night duty on 05.03.2017, did not report for duty and attempted to mislead the superior authorities and committed grave misconduct and dereliction of duty. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner were terminated from 22.03.2017 onwards.

(2.) Petitioner's case is that he has been continuing in the Hospital Development Committee for the last 13 years uninterruptedly. His first appointment was on 20.05.2004, which was made after conducting a regular process of selection which included interview.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he was on duty leave on 05.03.2017 and he was at his residence which is 30 kms away from the hospital. By about 7.45 p.m the respondents directed him over phone, to get ready with the vehicle for attending patients likely to be injured by the attack of leopard, which had descended in that area; leopard was trapped subsequently. Petitioner's case is that on receiving the phone call, he immediately returned to the hospital and seeing that the vehicle was short of fuel, he went to the fuel outlet and returned by about 8.45 pm along with vehicle. He says that he was assigned duty thereafter in ambulance; but not in connection with the attack of leopard. It is his further case that on receipt of phone call, he had alerted another driver who is residing close to the hospital and he had ensured his presence and assistance. It is pointed out that though some people got injured on account of attack by leopard and they were brought to the hospital in the evening, there was no casualty as expected.