V. S. SIVAJI Vs. K. SAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein had worked as an Over Head Tank Operator in Kuruvappanaickanoor Village since 1986, which fact is admitted by the first respondent herein. On 26/12/2007, a notice was issued by the first respondent herein to the petitioner, stating that he did not turn up for water distribution work from 22/11/2007 to 24/12/2007 and therefore had called upon the petitioner to receive the key and continue his job of water distribution. The petitioner claims to have given a reply to this notice on 28/12/2007. However, the first respondent, in the impugned order dtd. 24/1/2008, had stated that no reply has been received to their notice dtd. 26/12/2007 and on the advice of the Block Development Officer, as well as on the request of the President and members of the first respondent Panchayat, the petitioner herein was removed from service. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without consideration of the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice and without enquiry, he was removed from service. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the show cause notice dtd. 26/12/2007, it was stated that the petitioner is alleged to have been on unauthorized absence from 22/11/2007 to 24/12/2007, whereas in the impugned order of removal from service, the period of absence is shown as 22/11/2007 to 23/1/2008.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second and third respondents placed reliance on the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent and submitted that the petitioner herein had not replied to the show cause notice issued by the first respondent on 26/12/2007, which prompted them to remove the petitioner from service. It is his further submission that the decision to remove the petitioner from service was on the resolution passed by the President and the members of the first respondent Panchayat. Since the failure on the part of the petitioner to report for duty has affected the public at large, in view of the non-supply of water, the decision to remove him from service was rightly taken.