(1.) Through this Letters Patent Appeal, order of the learned Single Judge dated August 29, 1995 is challenged.
(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Octroi Clerk by the Panchayat on April 1, 1977. He was posted at Octroi Naka established by the Panchayat. On April 1, 1986, Panchayat gave contract for collection of octroi duty on its behalf. Since no posting order was given to the petitioner, the petitioner wrote letter dated April 4, 1986 to the Panchayat to give him posting. Through letter dated April 12, 1986, the petitioner was informed that the octroi staff had to work under the contractor and that although petitioner was already instructed orally to work under the contractor, he had not reported for duty. By letter dated April 18, 1936, the petitioner wrote to the Panchayat that he was informed about the contract for collection of octroi but he was also not told as to under what terms and conditions, he had to work under the contractor. The petitioner informed the Panchayat that he would continue to be employee of the Panchayat. Thereafter, by letter dated May 31, 1986, the Panchayat wrote to the petitioner that inspite of the instructions given to him, he had not reported for duty; the petitioner was told to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service within three days. The petitioner responded by letter dated June 10. 1986 that he had reported for duty but he was not assigned any work. The petitioner also informed that he was informed by the contractor that his name was not included in the list of employees who were to work under him. Thereafter, the Panchayat passed resolution dated June 30, 1986 terminating the service of the petitioner as he had remained absent with effect from, April 1, 1986 although he was asked to join duty by letter dated April 12, 1986. The petitioner, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No. 3702 of 1986.
(3.) This Court (Coram : R.C. Mankad, J.) allowed the petition on September 30,1986 on the ground that in case the petitioner was found having committed misconduct of remaining absent from duty without, leave, action terminating his service could not be taken without giving him opportunity of being heard, meaning thereby, opportunity to controvert the charge of misconduct. Since it was not given, resolution dated June 30, 1986 was quashed. Panchayat was directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages payable from April 1, 1986. This order was challenged through Letters Patent Appeal No. 164 of 1992. By judgment dated December 8, 1992, the appeal has been allowed; judgment of the learned Single Judge set aside and the special civil application No. 3702 of 1986 restored for rehearing. Thereafter, by impugned judgment dated August 29, 1995, petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the grounds inter alia, that the petitioner, being temporary employee, is not entitled to opportunity of being heard.