The central legal point established in the judgment is that termination of service must comply with the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, as mandated by Rule 7 of the Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:

“(i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash/set-aside an order dated 03/03/2016 (Annexure P/3) issued by the respondent no. 4.

(ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner alongwith all back wages and all other consequential and other benefit to the petitioner.

(iii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to petitioner case.

(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi and thereafter was appointed as a Secretary in the year 1995. The petitioner tried to satisfy the respondent authority and had worked with full sincerity and honesty to the utmost satisfaction. The petitioner worked on the post near about 20 year, with an unblemished service carrier. All of sudden a false complaint was made and petitioner was suspended on 02/04/2015. During the period of the suspension, the respondent not given the subsistence allowance to the petitioner, which amounts to violation of the natural justice and only on this ground alone, the order is liable to be set aside.

3. Thereafter, an explanation was called from the petitioner by the respondent no. 4 on 29/12/2015, which was an enquiry behind the back of the petitioner and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and further no show cause notice was given, nor any charge-sheet was supplied to the petitioner as per the requirement of law. Further proper and reasonable time to reply to the enquiry report was also not afforded to the petitioner. In the enquiry report, the charges no. 12 and 14 was also proved that too behind the back of the petitioner and directly a notice was given, seeking explanation from the petitioner.

4. The petitioner filed the reply to the enquiry report and pleaded innocent and further stated that nothing wrong had been done by the petitioner. Thereafter, no enquiry whatsoever was conducted, no charge-sheet was served after preliminary enquiry, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to examine or cross examine the witnesses and in the utter violation of principal of natural justice and in gross violation of Rule 7 of Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 (herein after referred as Rules 1999) imposed the major penalty of removal of the petitioner form service vide order dated 03/03/2016 by the respondent no.4.

5. The petitioner had been removed from the post of Panchayat Secretary and appointing authority of the Panchayat Secretary was the Collector and now as per the petitioner's knowledge, the power was given to the Director/Deputy Director, and that respondent no.4 is not the appointing authority of the petitioner, hence this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of respondent authority removing the petitioner from service is illegal, unsustainable, unconstitutional, arbitrary, passed with a malafide intention and with an ulterior motive and hence liable to be set-aside. He submits that the act and order of removal passed by respondent no.4 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, unconstitutional, and against the principal of natural justice and with the malafide intention. He further submits that illegally and with an ulterior motive the respondent no. 4 removed the petitioner from service without holding any enquiry.

7. The act and attitude of the respondent authority are that they are trying to frustrate the opportunity of the petitioner for appointment. No reasonable, fair opportunity has been given to the petitioner,