R. SATHYANARAYANA SARMA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the 1st respondent's proceedings dated 04.06.2003 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all monetary and service benefits.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Part-time Panchayat Union Clerk of Muthanampalayam Panchayat Union, Tiruppur on 03.01.1997 for a consolidated pay of Rs. 550/-. Thereafter, the consolidated pay was increased to Rs. 930/-. Subsequently, on the recommendation of the Block Development Officer, the 3rd respondent, the District Collector, the 1st respondent suspended the petitioner on 28.10.2002 based on six charges. Thereafter, the petitioner gave representations to the 2nd respondent on 30.12.2002 to re-instate him in service. The 1st respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges made against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his representation on 18.02.2003 to the Enquiry Officer. By order dated 25.03.2003, the 1st respondent re-instated the petitioner in service. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer for enquiry. The petitioner also submitted his explanation to the 1st respondent on 02.06.2003. The 1st respondent, by his proceedings dated 04.06.2003, dismissed the petitioner from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition.

(3.) Mr. M. Muthappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the District Collector has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and that the entire disciplinary action proceeded without any specific charge memo issued to the petitioner. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not furnished with the enquiry report.