V AMUDHA Vs. PRESIDENT KATTUPAIYUR PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that she was appointed as a part-time Clerk in the office of the first respondent, in the month of February, 2001. Since then she has been discharging her duties without any blemish. Her duties included collection of property tax, counter signing the measurement books, verifying the movement of materials and countersigning the bills, maintenance of books, collecting professional tax and house tax and remitting it to the first respondent.

(3.) BEFORE the order, removing the petitioner from service, had been passed, a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner showing the deficiencies in her work. Though the petitioner had received the said notice, on 18.11.2002, she had not submitted any explanation for the said notice. Thereafter, the first respondent had issued another notice, on 23.11.2002, and there was no explanation from the petitioner even thereafter. Subsequently notices, dated 16.11.2002 and 23.11.2002, had been sent to the petitioner giving her a further opportunity to submit her explanation. However, she had failed to do so. Another notice, dated 29.11.2002, had been issued to the petitioner. Since, no explanation had been submitted by the petitioner she was removed from service, by a resolution passed by the council in Resolution No.43 of 2002. After the petitioner had been removed from service, the first respondent had appointed one Kumaraguru, who is the third respondent herein, as a part-time Clerk, as per Resolution No.44 of 2002. Since the impugned order passed by the first respondent removing the petitioner from service is in accordance with law, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.