D RAMADOSS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION CHEPAUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was recruited as N.M.R. in the second respondent Municipality on 16.03.1977. He served up to 24.03.1988. THEreafter, he remained absent. His absence was notified in the Tamil Daily viz., Dhina Thanthi on 03.10.1988. THE notification directed him to report for duty within a month, as otherwise, he would be terminated from service. In spite of the said notification, he did not report for duty. Hence, the second respondent passed an order dated 06.09.1990 terminating the petitioner from service.

(2.) IN the meantime, the petitioner was regularised in service by the first respondent, by the proceedings dated 27.03.1989. But he was terminated from service by the second respondent, as stated above. After about two and a half year, he made a representation for reinstatement.

(3.) HEARD the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.