T CHINNAPPAN Vs. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: THE petitioner has been working under the third respondent as a Plot Watcher from 1.6.1982. THE post of Plot Watcher has not been brought into the regular establishment and therefore, the petitioner has been treated as a contingency staff. In spite of his long service of over 17 years he has not been recruited as a regular Watcher. While so, the third respondent had informed the petitioner, on 1.11.1999, that he will not be paid the salary from the month of November, 1999. This act of the third respondent amounts to termination of the petitioner's service, without any notice being issued to him. Thus, the termination of the service of the petitioner is in violation of the procedures established by law and it is in contravention of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had vehemently contended that the act of the third respondent, in stopping the petitioner from working, as a Plot Watcher, amounts to termination of the petitioner from service. Since no prior notice had been given to the petitioner, by the third respondent, before he was terminated from service, such termination cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as it is in contravention of the principles of natural justice. Even if the petitioner has been employed on a temporary basis, he should have been given an opportunity to put forth his case, in view of his long years of service. THE termination of the service of the petitioner, especially, at the time when his name had been included in the list of persons who were to be regularised in service, is arbitrary, illegal and void. When he was charged with negligence in performing his duties, he should have been issued with a show cause notice and an enquiry should have been conducted, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. THE allegations made against the petitioner attaches a stigma on him and it has civil consequences. THErefore, the termination by the third respondent, without following the principles of justice, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.