R. SIVANARAYANAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original petitioner is no more. He died during the pendency of the writ petition. His legal heirs are brought on record as the second petitioner to sixth petitioner. The first petitioner, i.e., the original petitioner, was appointed as Clerk on 01.12.1998 under the third respondent-Panchayat. He was terminated from service in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. He was placed under suspension by order dated 14.03.2006. An undated charge memo was issued to the petitioner making allegations. I am not going into the details of the allegations, since the same is not necessary for deciding this case.

(2.) THE petitioner submitted an explanation dated nil, denying those allegations. While so, a resolution was passed on 03.04.2007 in the third respondent Panchayat removing the petitioner from service. Again, after the resolution dated 03.04.2007, the third respondent issued a charge memo dated 09.04.2007. On the same day, dismissal order dated 09.04.2007 was passed by the third respondent. Thereafter, another order dated 05.06.2007 was passed dismissing the petitioner from service, and that order could not have been passed on 05.06.2007 since the writ petition was filed on 24.04.2007.

(3.) NO counter affidavit is filed. The writ petition is taken up for final disposal by consent of the learned counsel for both the parties.