G. GNANESWARAN Vs. THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties concerned.

(2.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 4.9.2014, and consequently to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service.

(3.) THE petitioner has further stated that he had challenged the cancellation of the certificate, by way of a writ petition, in W.P.No. 16241 of 2004. This Court had allowed the writ petition, by its order, dated 26.7.2005, stating that the two member District Level Vigilance Committee had no authority to pass an order cancelling the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Following the said order, a notice had been served on the petitioner during the year, 2007, by the District Level Vigilance Committee, Tiruchirapalli. The said notice had been challenged by the petitioner, in W.P.No. 3412 of 2007. An order had been passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, directing the disposal of the matter, by a three member committee. The State Level Scrutiny Committee, had issued a notice to the petitioner, on 29.9.2009, asking him to appear for an enquiry. As the petitioner was unwell, he had requested the Committee to grant some time for submitting the original documents relating to the claims made by him and to appear for an enquiry. Based on the records of the District Level Vigilance Committee and based on the report of the first respondent, the service of the petitioner had been terminated, by the second respondent, vide proceedings, dated 25.10.2010. As the respondent had passed ex -parte proceedings, the petitioner had approached this court in W.P.No. 22540 of 2010. This court had passed an order granting an opportunity to the petitioner to file all the necessary documents before the State Level Scrutiny committee, on or before 18.10.2010, and had directed the State Level Scrutiny Committee to pass orders thereon, within the specified time limit. In spite of a detailed explanation having been submitted and the necessary documents having been filed, no order had been passed by the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition, in W.P.No. 21495 of 2013.