KALAIMANI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR INSPECTOR OF PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with the impugned dismissal order dated 06.05.2012 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal, consequently directing the respondents Nos.1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages with continuity of service in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Panchayat Clerk in the third respondent Panchayat. He was doing all the works entrusted to him without any fail. In the meantime, in the year 2001 in the election held for the local bodies, one Muthulakshmi was elected as Panchayat President of the third respondent Panchayat. After handing over the accounts to the newly elected President, she took charge and assumed office on 25.10.2001. Within two months from the date on which the then Panchayat President assumed Office, with an ulterior motive, as a vindictive measure, she had issued a "œshow cause notice " calling upon him to give explanation. The said show cause notice was issued on the ground that the petitioner being a Panchayat Clerk did not make proper arrangements for the function held on 25.10.2001 and did not produce the records of the Panchayat to the then President Muthulakshmi.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only after completing all the formalities including surrendering/handing over the account books and all the documents related to the Panchayat, the new President took charge of the office. The petitioner submitted a reply on 03.01.2002. Without issuing charge memo and without conducting any enquiry and affording him any opportunity of hearing, which were mandatory in the eye of law, on 12.02.2002 the third respondent had passed an order dismissing him from the service without valid reason. Challenging the said dismissal order, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.13430 of 2002 before the Principal Bench of this Court. On 16.12.2010 when the case was finally heard, considering the facts and circumstances, he was not served with charge memo and no opportunity of hearing was given to him, the Hon'ble High Court had allowed the writ petition and thereby set aside the dismissal order. But, liberty was given to the third respondent to issue an appropriate charge memo, hold an enquiry and to pass appropriate orders after affording sufficient opportunity to him as required under law.