The High Court set aside a termination notice issued to an ambulance driver by a Grama Panchayath, holding that the employee was not given an opportunity of being heard before the penalty was imposed.
Set aside the termination notice (Ext.P2). Direct the Panchayath to issue a fresh notice giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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.
WP(C) NO. 10137 OF 2021 3
period even otherwise expired in the month of July 2021.
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
WP(C) NO. 10137 OF 2021 4
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
2 issues framed by the court
Whether termination of a contractual employee without an opportunity of being heard on allegations is justified?
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the expiry of the contractual period?
Jilumon Scaria
Kondaazhy Grama Panchayath
The Secretary, Kondaazhy Grama Panchayath
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
