S KANNAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR TIRUVANNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the writ of certiorari in calling for the records of the third respondent in his proceedings dated December 9,2002 removing the petitioner from the service of the third respondent as Water Overhead Tank Operator and to quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Water Overhead Tank Operator on February 1, 2000 by the Former Panchayat President of Meppathurai Village Panchayat/third respondent and was paid a monthly salary of Rs. 350/-. The petitioner was working for three years and for three months, he was not paid any salary and when he asked for the salary for the said three months immediately the third respondent passed the impugned order dated December 9, 2002 and served the same to him on December 26, 2002.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was working in the third respondent/Panchayat Office for the past three years (prior to the impugned order being served on him) as Water Overhead Tank Operator and the third respondent had not provided him any opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case and the impugned order dated December 9, 2002 was issued without giving notice to the petitioner, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and already the first respondent/District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District had issued a circular in Na.Ka.A82148/2002 dated March 6, 2002 by referring to the letter of the Government Secretary, Rural Development (E5) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 wherein it was mentioned that the employees of the Village Panchayat servants prior to their termination ought to be provided with a reasonable opportunity of obtaining their stand or explanation, etc., and also the sanitary employees and Motor Pump employees who are working continuously ought not to be terminated and even if those servants are terminated, they have to be reappointed and this instruction was issued to all the Presidents of the Village Panchayat and in short, the contention of the petitioner is that the third respondent had not adhered to the circular of the District Collector dated March 6,2002 referred to in supra and therefore prays for allowing the writ petition in the interest of justice.