25.02.2006. The fourth respondent was working as Panchayat clerk and the fourth respondent, using forgery signature, misappropriated the Village funds. Further, it is stated that the fourth respondent using some liquor during office as and not discharged his official duties. The writ petitioner states that she issued show cause notice to the fourth respondent on 11.08.2010 and directed the fourth respondent to submit his explanation on or before 30.08.2010, but no explanation was submitted in time, therefore the writ petitioner issued an order of suspension placing the fourth respondent under suspension with effect from 25.11.2010. The detailed charge memo was issued to the fourth respondent on 21.12.2010 and the direction was issued to submit his explanation. The fourth respondent did not appear in person nor submitted his explanation. Thus, the writ petitioner had taken a decision to terminate the services of the fourth respondent and accordingly passed the resolution in number 96 on 18.01.2011 and consequently the fourth respondent was terminated from service in proceedings dated 27.01.2011. The petitioner further states that the District Collector has erroneously canceled the termination order issued by the writ petitioner.
