Jilumon Scaria vs Kondazhy Grama Panchayath
2021 Latest Caselaw 19830 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
     THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 10137 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

           JILUMON SCARIA,
           AGED 42 YEARS
           S/O. SCARIA, RESIDING AT MEKKATTIL, SOUTH KONDAZHY,
           KONDAZHY P.O, THRISSUR, PIN CODE 679 106

           BY ADVS.
           P.G.JAYASHANKAR
           KUM.P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL)
           SMT.REVATHY P. MANOHARAN
           SHRI.S.RAJEEV



RESPONDENT/S:

     1     KONDAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
           KONDAZHY P.O, THRISSUR PIN 679 106 REPRESENTED BY
           SECRETARIAT.

     2     THE SECRETARY,
           KONDAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KONDAZHY P.O, THRISSUR, PIN
           679 106

           BY ADV SRI.P.JAYARAM




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 10137 OF 2021          2

                        JUDGMENT

The petitioner was appointed as an ambulance driver

by the first respondent - Panchayath on the basis of Ext.P1.

The petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 notice terminating the

petitioner from the post of ambulance driver. This is under

challenge in this proceedings. The learned counsel for the

petitioner vehemently contended that, though on the face of

it, Ext.P2 may appear to be a termination by invoking

clause 5 of Ext.P1, virtually it was a termination for a

misconduct. He was not given an opportunity of being

heard prior to invoking extreme penalty of termination, it

was contended.

2. Opposing the contention, the learned counsel for

the first respondent specifically referred to clause 5 of

Ext.P1, which empowered the authority to terminate the

service of the contractual employee by invoking the

provision subject to the condition of giving 30 days notice.

It was further contended that the present writ petition has

also become infructuous, since the petitioner's contractual

period even otherwise expired in the month of July 2021.

3. Though it may appears that Ext.P2 was issued by

invoking clause 5 of Ext.P1, it seems that allegations were

raised against the petitioner. He was not given an

opportunity of being heard. Having considered that,

termination of service of the employee, even though as a

contractual employee, without giving an opportunity of

being heard on the allegation raised against him, seems to

be unjustified. Accordingly, I am inclined to set aside

Ext.P2. The Panchayath will be free to issue fresh notice to

give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to

take final decision on the basis of the reply. It is made

clear that no comment is made regarding the merits of

allegations raised or regarding the authority of the

Panchayath to terminate the petitioner by virtue of clause 5

of Ext.P1. Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE R.AV

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10137/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT DATED 04-09-2020, APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS THE AMBULANCE DRIVER AT 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.

B2-3295/2020 DATED 26-03-2021