Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S.RAMESH, J.
V.S.Sivaji - Petitioner
Vs.
K.Samy & Ors. - Respondent
W.P.No.7217 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2011, 1 of 2013 & 1 of 2014
Decided On : 02-01-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Babu Rangasamy
For the Respondent: Mr.K.Surendran, Mr.G.Velu, Additional Government Pleader
The judgment established that termination of service without proper notice, enquiry, and mandatory resolution violated the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Termination of Service - Notice, Enquiry, and Resolution - [Over Head Tank Operator] - [No. 3499/2007/Aa1, Letter dated 27.12.2007] - The court found that the termination of service without a proper show cause notice or opportunity for an enquiry violated the principles of natural justice. The impugned order also lacked a mandatory resolution from the Panchayat board members, rendering it unsustainable. The petitioner was entitled to wages from the date of termination till superannuation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Over Head Tank Operator, was removed from service without a proper show cause notice or opportunity for an enquiry. The impugned order lacked a mandatory resolution from the Panchayat board members.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination of service violated the principles of natural justice and ordered the respondents to pass appropriate orders for the petitioner's retirement benefits and continuity of service.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, lack of mandatory resolution from the Panchayat board members, entitlement to wages from the date of termination till superannuation.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned order of termination was unsustainable due to the lack of proper notice, enquiry, and mandatory resolution from the Panchayat board members.
Final Decision: The impugned order of termination was quashed, and the respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders for the petitioner's retirement benefits and continuity of service.
ORDER :
The petitioner herein had worked as an Over Head Tank Operator in Kuruvappanaickanoor Village since 1986, which fact is admitted by the first respondent herein. On 26.12.2007, a notice was issued by the first respondent herein to the petitioner, stating that he did not turn up for water distribution work from 22.11.2007 to 24.12.2007 and therefore had called upon the petitioner to receive the key and continue his job of water distribution. The petitioner claims to have given a reply to this notice on 28.12.2007. However, the first respondent, in the impugned order dated 24.01.2008, had stated that no reply has been received to their notice dated 26.12.2007 and on the advice of the Block Development Officer, as well as on the request of the President and members of the first respondent Panchayat, the petitioner herein was removed from service. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without consideration of the petitioner-s reply to the show cause notice and without enquiry, he was removed from service. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the show cause notice dated 26.12.2007, it was stated that the petitioner is alleged to have been on unauthorized absence from 22.11.2007 to 24.12.2007, whereas in the impugned order of removal from service, the period of absence is shown as 22.11.2007 to 23.01.2008.
3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second and third respondents placed reliance on the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent and submitted that the petitioner herein had not replied to the show cause notice issued by the first respondent on 26.12.2007, which prompted them to remove the petitioner from service. It is his further submission that the decision to remove the petitioner from service was on the resolution passed by the President and the members of the first respondent Panchayat. Since the failure on the part of the petitioner to report for duty has affected the public at large, in view of the non-supply of water, the decision to remove him from service was rightly taken.
4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.
5. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation in the year 2018 itself.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been working for about 22 years continuously, since the year 1986 onwards. He has now been unceremoniously removed from services. There are certain discrepancies in the mode in which the order of removal from service has been passed.
7. Firstly, in the notice dated 26.12.2007, the period of absence is shown as 22.11.2007 to 24.12.2007, whereas in the impugned order, the dates differ thereby showing the period of absence as 22.11.2007 to 23.01.2008. Even otherwise, the notice dated 26.12.2007 cannot be termed to be a show cause notice at all. The notice does not call for the petitioner-s objections on some contemplated action, but rather states that, if the petitioner does not turn up to the office and receive the keys pertaining to the tank, he would be removed from service. No opportunity was extended in this notice dated 26.12.2007 for the petitioner to render his explanation. When the first respondent himself admits that the petitioner was employed for the past 22 years, terminating him from service, without a proper show cause notice or giving an opportunity to him by way of an enquiry, is against the principles of natural justice. On the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order of removal from service cannot be sustained.
8. The impugned order also suffers from another infirmity. When the petitioner, who has been in long service for 22 years, is proposed with a punishment of removal from service, the resolution of the Board members of the Panchayat is mandatory. The impugned order, however
