( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by a person who claims that he had been appointed as a 'second Division Assistant' in the year 1978 on temporary basis to serve in the notified area, Gokak falls by the Deputy commissioner of Belgaum District.

( 2 ) IT appears the Deputy Commissioner terminated the services of the temporary employee in the year 1979 and that action though belatedly had been questioned by filing a writ petition in W. P. No. 7116 of 1983, in the interregnum, there appears to have been certain other developments wherein the Divisional commissioner also appears to have issued some directions, but which had not been given effect to in one of the two manners suggested by the Divisional Commissioner and this court in the light of the Deputy Commissioner not having fully obeyed with the directions issued by the Divisional Commissioner, ordered that the Deputy Commissioner should consider giving the posting to the petitioner in any other place if the local authority at gokak Notified Area had decided to abolish the post and disposed of the writ petition by partly allowing the same in terms of the order dated 17-12-1991 (copy at Annexure-A ).

( 3 ) IT is thereafter that the Deputy Commissioner issued an order on 12-3-1992 (copy at annexure-B) posting the petitioner to work as 'second Division Assistant - Grade II at the respondent No. 3-Town Municipal Council, Saundatti, with effect from 1-4-1992 and in place of one Hampannavar who was due to retire from the post from 31-3-1992.

( 4 ) IT is the version of the petitioner that the petitioner armed with such order reported to duty at the Town Municipal Council, saundatti on 3-4-1992 and in fact worked there till 6-4-1992. but thereafter appears to have not worked: that he went on leave and later sought to support the absence by producing a medical certificate; that when the petitioner tried to rejoin the duty on 13-4-1992 he was not accepted for resuming duty and that the respondent No. 3-Municipal Council insisted that the petitioner should produce the last paid certificate from his former employer-respondent No. 2-Gokak Falls Notified Area and other service details.

( 5 ) IT is the version of the petitioner that he had caused issued of a notice to the respondent No. 3-Municipality indicating that such information/particulars can be

obtained directly from the respondent No. 2; as the petitioner did not have any material etc. ; further case of the petitioner is that he was thereafter declined an opportunity to work in the office of the respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the petitioner had to take care of himself.

( 6 ) IT appears disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in the year 1992 by issue of a notice calling upon the petitioner to explain about his unauthorised absence etc. . .

( 7 ) SUBMISSION of Sri Mensinkai, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had promptly replied to this notice and denied the allegation; that the petitioner was very much willing to work, but it is the officers of the Town Municipal Council, particularly, chief Executive Officer, Saundatti who prevented from resuming his work. The inquiry came to its conclusion in the year 1997 by passing of the impugned order dated 27-8-1997 (copy at Annexure-E) by the Director, town Municipal Administration by imposing the punishment of removal from service and also treating the absence of the petitioner from the year 1992 till the passing of the order as leave without pay.

( 8 ) IT is such order which is questioned by filing writ petition in the year 2004 on the premise that the inquiry is vitiated as the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself, that the inquiry and findings are also not tenable for the reason that it is not based on proper material or evidence; that even when there was no evidence at all before the authorities that the petitioner was either practising as a lawyer in between and on the other hand had expressly issued a no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document